This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 31 December 2014, At: 07:57

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Mining,

Reclamation and Environment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme20

The application of the analytic

hierarchy process (AHP) and Yager’s
method in underground mining method
selection problem
a
Mahmut Yavuz
a
Mining Engineering Department, Eskisehir Osmangazi University,
Eskisehir, Turkey
Published online: 12 Mar 2014.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Mahmut Yavuz (2014): 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, DOI: 10.1080/17480930.2014.895218

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2014.895218

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2014.895218

The application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Yager’s

method in underground mining method selection problem
Mahmut Yavuz*

Mining Engineering Department, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

(Received 13 December 2012; accepted 12 February 2014)

Underground mining method selection (UMMS) is one of the most important deci-
sions in mining engineering. Choosing a suitable underground mining method to
carry out extraction from a mineral deposit is very important for all stage of mining
operations. In practice, UMMS is one of the multiple attribute decision-making
(MADM) problems and mining engineers have some difficulties in making the right
decision in the multiple criteria environment. In this paper, the following two similar
MADM methods are described: analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy multiple attri-
bute decision-making are applied to select the optimal underground mining method
for lignite mine located in Istanbul. At the end of decision-making process, sensitiv-
ity analysis process is applied for each method.
Keywords: underground mining method selection; AHP; fuzzy multiple attribute
decision-making; Yager’s method

1. Introduction
Mineral exploitation in which all extractions are carried out beneath the earth’s surface
is termed as underground mining. Underground methods are employed when the depth
of the deposit and/or the stripping ratio of overburden to ore (or coal or stone) and/or
both become excessive for surface exploitation. Once economic analysis points to
underground methods, the choice of a proper mining procedure hinges mainly on deter-
mining the appropriate form of ground support, if necessary, or its absence; and design-
ing the openings and their sequence of extraction to conform to the spatial
characteristics of the mineral deposit [1].
Underground mining method selection (UMMS) is closely related to several factors
such as ground control on mining areas, planning ventilation system, decreasing the
maintenance costs of galleries, developing new mining panels preparing the under-
ground production schedule and the geology of deposit. To work safely in under-
ground, increasing the productivity and eliminating the production costs and losses are
the basic priorities for UMMS. As it is nearly impossible to change the mining method
once selected, UMMS process is extremely important in mine design due to the reasons
of rising costs and mining losses.
The problem of UMMS has been studied in the literature. Boshkov and Wright [2]
proposed a classification system which was one of the first qualitative classification
schemes. Morrison [3] suggested a selection chart for mining method selection.

*Email: myavuz@ogu.edu.tr

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 M. Yavuz

Laubscher [4] proposed a selection methodology of an appropriate mass underground

mining method based on rock mass classification system. Nicholas [5] presented a clas-
sification system for selection of the optimum mining method via numerical ranking
with quantitative analysis. Hartman [6] developed a selection chart based on the geome-
try of the deposit and the ground conditions of the ore zone for selecting mining
method. Miller-Tait et al. [7] modified the Nicholas’ system and developed the UBC
mining method selection process.
The approach to the selection of mining method can be classified in three groups as
qualitative methods, numerical ranking methods and decision-making methods. In this
study, two similar multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) methods, analytic hier-
archy process (AHP) and fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making (FMADM) are used
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

to solve UMMS problem.

Although many outstanding works have been published based on MADM methods
in the literature, the only works related with UMMS and mining operations are men-
tioned here. In the literature, six different methods of MCDM, which are as follows:
FMADM [8–12], AHP [11–18], TOPSIS [11, 17], PROMETHEE [18], Fuzzy TOPSIS
[19, 20] and Fuzzy AHP [20–22] have been proposed to solve the problem of mining
method selection. Three of these methods, FMADM, AHP and TOPSIS, are very easily
understandable and applicable methods by decision-makers at the levels. Any decision-
maker can easily learn these methods and can use a simple way to solve the UMMS
problem. However, other methods may be difficult to use and should be learned a little
more by decision-maker.
In this paper, two similar and easy applicable MADM methods: AHP and FMADM
are used to select the best underground mining method for lignite mine located near the
Istanbul. At the end of decision-making process, sensitivity analysis process is applied
for each method. The study shows that these methods can be easily used for decision-
making process in UMMS by mining engineers.

2. Method
UMMS problem is really important and also difficult to solve because of the need for
handling many criteria in the process of decision-making simultaneously. The number
of the criteria is very important in decision-making process for making right decisions.
The total number of criteria to be handled in decision-making problems should be max-
imum seven plus two (=9) because of the general limitations on human performance
[23]. Those limits are widely known in the literature [24] as ‘memory span’, ‘attention
span’, ‘central computing space’, ‘channel capacity’ and so on. If the pairwise compari-
son matrixes are formed without taking into consideration the limits, inconsistency will
probably occur. Also, even if the matrix is consistent, it will probably be not valid.
Therefore, the correct usage of the chosen decision-making method is extremely impor-
tant to be able to make the right decisions. Because of the limitations mentioned in the
AHP method, total number of criteria for the Yager’s method should also be less than
9 [25].

2.1. AHP Method

AHP, since its invention, has been a tool at the hands of decision-makers and research-
ers; and it is one of the most widely used multiple attribute decision-making tools. This
is an Eigen value approach to the pairwise comparison of components with respect to
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 3

attributes and alternatives. A pairwise comparison matrix n × n is constructed, where n

is the number of elements to be compared. After the hierarchy structuring, the pairwise
comparison matrix is constructed for each level, where a nominal discrete scale from 1
to 9 (Table 1) is used for the evaluation [26].
Some key and basic steps involved in this methodology are [26]:

(1) State the problem.

(2) Broaden the objectives of the problem or consider all actors, objectives and its
outcome.
(3) Identify the criteria that influence the behaviour.
(4) Structure the problem in a hierarchy of different levels constituting goal, crite-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

ria, sub-criteria and alternatives.

(5) Compare each element in the corresponding level and calibrate them on the
numerical scale. This requires comparisons, where n is the number of elements
with the considerations that diagonal elements are equal or ‘1’ and the other
elements will simply be the reciprocals of the earlier comparisons.
(6) Perform calculations to find the maximum Eigen value, Consistency Index (CI).

Consistency Ratio (CR), and normalised values for each criteria or alternative.
(P n )
1X n
j¼1 aij  wj
kmax ¼ (1)
n i¼1 wi

where kmax is the maximal or principal Eigen value, and n is the matrix size, aij is an
element of pairwise comparison matrix, wj and wi is the jth and ith element of Eigen
values, respectively.
kmax  n
CI ¼ (2)
n1

CI
CR ¼ (3)
RI
where RI is the random indices.

Table 1. Scale for pairwise comparisons [27].

Relative
intensity Definition
1 Of equal value
3 Slightly more value
5 Essential or strong value
7 Very strong value
9 Extreme value
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between
two adjacent judgments
Explanation
Two requirements are of equal value
Experience slightly favours one requirement over
another
Experience strongly favours one requirement over
another
A requirement is strongly favoured and its
dominance is demonstrated in practice
The evidence favouring one over another is of the
highest possible order of affirmation
When compromise is needed
 4 M. Yavuz

To find out whether the resulting CI is acceptable, the CR should be calculated. RI

values are given in Table 2 [26].
As a general rule, a CR value of 0.10 or less is considered acceptable. In practice,
however, CRs exceeding 0.10 occur frequently.

(1) If the maximum Eigen value, CI and CR are satisfactory then decision is taken
based on the normalised values; else the procedure is repeated till these values
lie in a desired range.

2.2. FMADM method

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

The FMADM methods have been developed due to the lack of precision in assessing
the relative importance of attributes and the performance ratings of alternatives with
respect to an attribute. The imprecision may come from a variety of sources such as:
unquantifiable information, incomplete information, non-obtainable information and
partial ignorance [28].
The problem of fuzzy MADM is to select/prioritise/rank a finite number of courses
of action (or alternatives) by evaluating a group of predetermined criteria. Thus, to
solve this problem, an evaluation procedure to rate and rank, in order of preference, the
set of alternatives must be constructed. The fuzzy MADM problem is described below:

(1) A set of m possible courses of action (referred to as alternatives), A = {A1, A2,

… Ai, … , Am};
(2) A set of n attributes (or criteria), C = {C1, C2, …, Cj, … , Cn} with which
alternative performances are measured;
(3) A performance rating of alternative Ai with respect to attribute (or criterion) Cj,
which is given by the n × m fuzzy decision matrix Ř = {Řij | i = 1, 2, … m; j
= 1, 2, … , n}, where Řij is a fuzzy set (or fuzzy number); and
(4) A set of n fuzzy weights Ŵ = {Ŵj | j = 1, 2, … n}, where Ŵj is also a fuzzy set
(or fuzzy number) and denotes the importance of criterion j, Cj, in the evalua-
tion of the alternatives [28].

Although a large number of FMADM methods have been addressed in the litera-
ture, the focus of this paper is mainly on the Yager’s method [29]. This is general
enough to deal with both multiple objectives and multiple attribute problems. The Yag-
er’s method [29] follows the max–min method of Bellman and Zadeh [30], with the
improvement of Saaty’s method, which considers the use of a reciprocal matrix to
express the pairwise comparison criteria and the resulting eigenvector as subjective
weights. The weighting procedure uses exponentials based on the definition of linguis-
tic hedges, proposed by Zadeh [31].
On describing MADM problems, only a single objective is considered, namely the
selection of the best alternative from a set of alternatives. The Yager’s Method assumes
the max–min principle approach. The fuzzy set decision is the intersection of all crite-
ria: μD (A) = Min {μC1(Ai), μC2(Ai), … , μCn (Ai)}. For all (Ai) ∈ A, and the optimal
decision is yielded by, μD (A*) = Max (μD,(Ai)), where A* is the optimal decision.
A main difference in this approach is that the importance of criteria is represented
as exponential scalars. This is based on the idea of linguistic hedges. The rationale
behind using weights (or importance levels) as exponents is that the higher the
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Table 2. Random indices of randomly generated reciprocal matrices [26].

Order of the matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI value 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment
5
 6 M. Yavuz

importance of criteria, the larger should be the exponent, giving the minimum rule.
Conversely, the less important a criterion, is the smaller its weight. This seems intui-
tive. Formally, for α > 0 [32]:
lD ðAi Þ ¼ Min fðlC1 ðAi ÞÞa1 ; ðlC2 ðAi ÞÞa2 . . . ðlCn ðAi ÞÞan g (4)

2.3. Modified Yager’s method approach

Because of the limitations mentioned before in the ‘Method’ section, the total number
of criteria for the Yager’s method should absolutely be less than 9 [25]. A new method
is proposed in this paper for making right decisions. In this method, following steps
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

are applied for solving the problem in question with Yager’s method;

 Group the criteria into the clusters having no more than nine criteria.
 Perform Saaty’s method for main groups and calculate the weights for each
group.
 Perform Saaty’s method for all the criteria in each group and calculate the weight
of each criterion in the group.
 Calculate the final weights of the criteria by multiplying the criteria weights with
their own group weights.

3. Case study
In this study, the AHP and FMADM methods were performed to select best under-
ground mining method for the Ciftalan lignite site located at 35 km north of Istanbul,
Turkey. The location of the lignite site is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location of the Ciftalan lignite site in Turkey.

 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 7

Although all open pit mines operated at the sites surrounding the Ciftalan lignite
site had stopped their lignite production, the Ciftalan lignite site had stayed untouched
and no coal has ever been produced at this site. It was understood that the company
had planned to extract the coal by open pit mining despite the fact that the profitable
coal seam lies under the Ciftalan village at a depth of 55 m. But the company could
not extract the coal by open pit mining because of the fact that the village refused to
sell these properties to the company [10].
The generated parameters together with related criterion by Karadogan et al. [10],
which are needed for the method selection, are given briefly in Table 3. A simplified
geological section with description and labelling through the formation being studied in
the case study is modified and given in Figure 2 [33].
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

The proposed decision-making models for the selection of optimum underground

mining method for Ciftalan lignite site consist of several steps. The first step is to iden-
tify the criteria that are considered in the mining method selection process and mining
methods as alternatives for each method. Then, the weights of the criteria are deter-
mined and pairwise comparison matrixes are constructed. In order to perform the deci-
sion-making process, the scores for each criterion and whole weights are converted to
fuzzy numbers in the FMADM method. In the last stage, model outputs are evaluated.
A mining engineer can consult to classification chart based on Hartman and Mut-
mansky [1] proposes for determining possible underground mining methods. However,
this chart cannot give an exact solution for any decision-making problem about
UMMS. A decision-maker will encounter to select an underground mining method
among the alternatives proposed by classification chart if the steps given in Figure 3
are followed. For example; the chart will suggest some caving methods such as long-
wall mining, sub-level caving, block caving, block mining with square-sets, pillar

Table 3. Determined technical parameters for selection criterion [10].

Criterion
Geometric shape of the lignite
deposit
Thickness of the lignite seam
Seam inclination
Excavation depth
Soundness degree of the lignite
Contact state of the lignite seam-
hanging and footwall
Soundness degree of the hanging
wall
Soundness degree of the footwall
Subsidence effect
Support necessity
Nearness of the settlement areas
Burning property of the lignite
Hydraulic conditions
Description
Plate state (layered)
2.3 m (average)
5° (average)
55 m (average)
Low strength (compressive strength: 41 MPa)
Not clear
Hanging wall is marl-clay-sand. Low strength (compressive
strength: 28 MPa)
Footwall is clay. Low strength (shear strength: 2.2 kg/cm2)
Seam is near to the surface (55 m) and hanging wall is low
strength (compressive strength: 28 MPa). Therefore, there is
a subsidence risk
However, hanging wall and footwall became low strength,
support is necessary
There is a Ciftalan village over the lignite seam (55 m)
The lignite has burning property by itself and burning
property is high.
There is the Black Sea at the north of lignite site
(about 500 m) and there is a water problem. Because
elevation of the seam is about −10
 8 M. Yavuz

Vertical Section Thickness Lithology

Sand stone, clay stone

1-10 m and topsoil

5-10 m Silty sand stone

Clayey, gravelley, silty

8-12 m sand stone (yellow colors)

Sand-clay-gravel
5-15 m (green and blue colors)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

0-1 m Upper coal seam

5-15 m Marl stone-clay stone-sand
stone (blue colors)
1.5-3 m Mid-coal seam
1.2 m Clay (gray)
1-1.5 m Lower coal seam

Figure 2. Geological section of the Ciftalan coal deposit [33].

Figure 3. Selection structure of alternatives for UMMS [1].

caving and top slicing if deposit shape is tabular and ore strength is weak. However, it
is not clear which method is the most appropriate method for the site because this
selection method does not provide any quantitative evaluation. Besides, it has not con-
cluded in the application type of underground mining method (such as longwall mining
method with filling, progressed or returned) by employing that kind of charts.
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 9

In order to overwhelm the deficiencies of the UMMS methods like suggesting

non-qualitative results as mentioned before, UMMS methods recommending the alter-
natives together with quantitative evaluations are required. Based on the UBC approach
by Miller-Tait et al. [7] for quantitative evaluations giving more valuable information
about the UMMS process, the alternatives of the AHP models and FMADM can be
determined in the first stage of the decision-making process. The UBC approach is a
simply modified version of the Nicholas approach [5] and numerically ranks deposit
characteristics of ore geometry and rock mechanics characteristics of the ore zone, foot-
wall and hanging wall. The rankings are then summed together with the higher rank-
ings being the more favourable or likely methods. Each ranking consists of a number
‘0–6’ or ‘–10, –49’. ‘–49’ completely eliminates a mining method from being feasible.
A value of ‘0’ strongly suggests that this characteristic makes that particular mining
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

technique less attractive. The value ‘6’ indicates a very favourable characteristic for that
particular mining method. To determine the set of valid alternatives, the UMMS uses
UBC final ranking of the appropriate alternatives generated by following the UBC rat-
ing system given in Tables 4–6 [7].
In order to determine the valid alternatives for the studied site considering the tech-
nical parameters given in Table 3, appropriate underground mining methods can be
selected in EduMine web site [34] designed to use UBC method (Figure 4). The total
rating for all underground mining method alternatives is given in parenthesis. It should
also be noted that the rock substance strength (RSS) values were calculated by dividing
uniaxial strengths of ore, hanging wall and footwall to principal stresses.
Available alternatives in Figure 4 are Longwall Mining, Open Pit Mining, Cut and
Fill Stoping, Square Set Stoping and Top Slicing. Although the Open Pit Mining, Cut
and Fill Stoping, Square Set Stoping and Top Slicing are included in the available alter-
natives for Ciftalan coal deposit, the decision-maker can decide that any alternative can
be included or excluded from the alternatives set considering either the rating given for
alternatives or engineering experience. If the decision-maker decides to exclude open
pit mining method, it will no longer be available further in the decision process and the
remaining methods will stay in the alternatives set. The UMMS process for the studied
site, AHP and FMADM methods were performed by excluding the all methods from
the set except for longwall mining method. But, five different types of longwall mining
methods are included as alternatives. These methods, which can be applied for this
underground mine, were determined by the experts in the original study [10]. Those
are given below:

(1) Longwall method with filling; direction of inclination rising (A1)

(2) Longwall method with filling; direction of inclination decline (A2)
(3) Longwall method with filling; progressed (A3)
(4) Longwall method with filling; returned (A4)
(5) Room and pillar method with filling (A5).

The second stage of DM process is the determination of criteria. As mentioned

before, selection of underground mining method is specifically determined according to
the site to be mined. So, decision-maker should determine the appropriate criteria for
UMMS problem. If decision-makers have got difficulties about determination the crite-
ria, they can use criteria proposed by Hartman and Mutmansky [1]. Those criteria and
their sub-criteria are as follows:
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

10

Table 4. Ranking of geometry/grade distribution for different mining methods [7].

Grade
General shape Ore thickness Ore plunge distribution Depth
Mining method M T/P I VN N I T VT F I S U G E SH I D
Open pit mining 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 3 2 4 0 −49
Block caving 4 2 0 −49 −49 0 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 3
Sub-level stoping 3 4 1 −10 1 3 4 3 2 1 4 4 4 3 3 4 2
Sub-level caving 3 4 1 −49 −49 0 4 4 1 1 4 3 2 2 3 2 2
Longwall mining 4 4 3 0 4 0 4 1 0 2 2 3
M. Yavuz

−49 −49 −49 −49 −49

Room and pillar 0 4 2 4 3 1 −49 −49 4 0 −49 4 2 0 3 3 2
Shrinkage stoping 0 4 2 4 4 0 −49 −49 −49 0 4 3 2 2 3 3 2
Cut & Fill stoping 1 4 4 3 4 4 1 0 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4
Top slicing 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 1
Square set stoping 0 1 4 4 3 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 1 3 1 1 2
Notes: M = Massive; VN = Very narrow; F = Flat; U = Uniform; S = Shallow; T/P = Tabular or platy; N = Narrow; I = Intermediate; G = Gradational; I = Intermediate; mI = Irregu-
lar; = Intermediate; S = Steep; E = Erratic; D = Deep; T = Thick; VT = Very thick.
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 11

Table 5. Rock mechanics characteristics-rock mass rating [7].

Ore zone Hanging wall Footwall

Mining method VW W M S VS VW W M S VS VW W M S VS
Open pit mining 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 4
Block caving 4 3 2 0 −49 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Sub-level stoping 1 3 4 4 4 −49 0 3 4 4 0 0 2 3 3
Sub-level caving 3 4 3 1 0 4 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 3
Longwall mining 6 6 4 2 2 6 5 4 3 3 – – – – –
Room and pillar −49 0 3 5 6 −49 0 3 5 6 – – – – –
Shrinkage stoping 0 1 3 3 3 0 0 2 4 4 0 0 2 3 3
Cut & fill stoping 0 1 2 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Top slicing 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 1 2 2
Square set stoping 4 4 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
Notes: RMR ratings: Very Weak (VW) = 0–20, Weak (W) = 21–40, Moderate (M) = 41–60, Strong (S) = 61–80,
Very Strong (VS) = 81–100.

Table 6. Rock mechanics characteristics-RSS ratings [7].

Ore zone Hanging wall Footwall

Mining method VW W M S VW W M S VW W M S
Open pit mining 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4
Block caving 4 2 1 0 4 3 2 0 4 3 2 1
Sub-level stoping 0 2 4 4 0 1 4 5 0 1 3 3
Sub-level caving 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 2 2
Longwall mining 6 5 2 1 6 5 2 2 – – – –
Room and pillar 0 0 3 6 0 0 2 6 – – – –
Shrinkage stoping 0 1 3 4 0 1 3 4 0 2 3 3
Cut & fill stoping 0 1 3 3 3 5 4 2 1 3 2 2
Top slicing 3 2 1 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Square set stoping 4 3 1 0 4 2 1 0 3 2 0 0
Notes: RSS ratings: Very Weak (VW) = < 5, Weak (W) = 5–10, Moderate (M) = 10–15, Strong (S) = > 15.

 Spatial characteristics of the deposit (Sub-criteria: Size of deposit, attitude of

deposit, depth of deposit, regularity of the ore boundaries, existence of previous
mining).
 Geologic and hydrologic conditions (Sub-criteria: Mineralogy and petrography,
chemical composition, deposit structure, planes of weakness, uniformity of grade,
alteration and weathered zones, existence of strata gases).
 Geotechnical (soil and rock mechanics) properties (Sub-criteria: Elastic properties,
plastic or viscoelastic behaviour, state of stress, rock mass rating, other physical
properties affecting competence).
 Economic considerations (Sub-criteria: Reserves, production rate, mine life, pro-
ductivity, comparative mining costs, comparative capital costs).
 Technological factors (Sub-criteria: Recovery, dilution, flexibility of the method
to changing conditions, selectivity of the method, concentration or dispersion of
workings, ability to mechanise and automate, capital and labour intensities).
 12 M. Yavuz
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Figure 4. Web page designed for UMMS [34].

 Environmental concerns (Sub-criteria: Ground control to maintain integrity of

openings, subsidence or caving effects at the surface, atmospheric control, avail-
ability of suitable waste disposal areas, workforce, comparative safety conditions
of the suitable mining methods).

Karadogan et al. [10] have selected 15 criteria for the case study in their paper and
those criteria have not been clustered/grouped yet. For a correct usage of the decision-
making method, the criteria were clustered into five main groups in the present study.
Criteria determined by Karadogan et al. [10] were reorganised as sub-criterion under
the main criterion. These are:

(1) Geometric criteria (C1)

(a) Geometric shape of the lignite deposit (C11)
(b) Thickness of the lignite seam (C12)
(c) Seam inclination (C13)
(d) Excavation depth (C14)
(5) Seam-hanging and footwall criteria (C2)
(a) Soundness degree of the lignite (C21)
(b) Contact state of the lignite (C22)
(c) Soundness degree of the hanging wall (C23)
(d) Soundness degree of the footwall (C24)
(5) Support criteria (C3)
(a) Subsidence effect (C31)
(b) Support necessity (C32)
(c) Nearness of the settlement areas (C33)
(4) Ore and deposit criteria (C4)
(a) Burning property of the lignite (C41)
(b) Methane existence (C42)
(c) Hydraulic conditions (C43)
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 13

(4) Cost criteria (C5)

(a) Mining cost (C51)
(b) Capital cost (C52)
(c) Production cost (C53)
(d) Labour cost (C54)

3.1. AHP solution

In order to start solving the problem with the AHP method, the problem was structured
in a hierarchy of different levels constituting goal, criteria and alternatives as shown in
Figure 5.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

After structuring the hierarchy, the pairwise comparison matrix for each level is
constructed. For the pairwise comparison values, a nominal scale is used given in
Table 1. All main criteria affecting UMMS were compared to each other by the experts,
and the pairwise comparison matrix given in Table 7 was constructed. Weights in this
study, structured in accordance with the original work by Karadogan et al. [10]. It is
apparent that the Geometric criterion is the most important factor (with the rating of
0.481) and it is followed by the production criterion.
After comparing of main criteria, the same procedure was also performed for all
their sub-group criteria by the experts and the following comparison matrices given in
Tables 8–12 constructed.
At the next step, the pairwise comparison of the alternatives based on the each sub-
criterion should be performed. Thus, eighteen matrices were formed. As there are five
alternatives, the matrix order was 5 × 5. One example of comparison matrices (for geo-
metric shape of the lignite deposit) is presented in Table 13. Table 14 shows overall
priorities calculated for the sub-criteria of ‘Geometric’ main criterion. It is readily
observed from the table that the most suitable alternative is ‘Longwall method with fill-
ing; progressed (A3)’ when judged by the Geometric criterion.
The overall rating of each alternative is calculated by summing the product of the
relative priority of each criterion and the relative priority of the alternative considering
the corresponding criteria. For example, the overall rating of alternative A1 is calculated
as; (0.097 × 0.160) + (0.074 × 0.278) + (0.077 × 0.467) + (0.096 × 0.095) = 0.081. The
final matrix is presented in Table 15.
Since the comparisons are based on the subjective evaluation, CRs were calculated
using Equation (3) to ensure the selection accuracy. The results showed that the maxi-
mum Eigen values (λmax) were near to the size of the corresponding matrices and the
CR values for all matrices were less than 0.1.
Overall results in Table 15 show that the alternative ‘A5’, Room and pillar method
with filling, should be selected as the optimum underground mining method for Cifta-
lan lignite site because the priority of this alternative (0.355) is the highest value than
that of the others.

3.2. The FMADM solution

The set of possible alternatives is A = {A1, A2, A3, A4, A5} and the set of selection crite-
ria is C = {C11, C12, C13, C14, C21, C22, C23, C24, C31, C32, C33, C41, C42, C43, C51,
C52, C53, C54}. The decision-maker is then asked to define the membership degree of
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

14

Level 1 Underground Mining Method Selection

Goal

Level 2
Criteria
Geometric Seam-hanging and Support Ore and Cost
(C1) footwall (C2) (C3) deposit (C4) (C5)

C11 C12 C13 C14 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C33 C41 C42 C43 C51 C52 C53 C54
M. Yavuz

Level 3
Sub-criteria

Level 4 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
Alternatives

Figure 5. AHP model for the problem.

 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 15

Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix of main criterion.

Main criteria Geometric Seam Support Ore Cost Eigen (W)

Geometric 1 2 8 9 4 0.481
Seam 0.500 1 6 7 3 0.297
Support 0.125 0.167 1 2 0.500 0.063
Ore 0.111 0.143 1 1 0.333 0.041
Cost 0.250 0.333 2 3 1 0.117
λmax = 5.057; CR = 0.013 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

Table 8. Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-group criteria of geometric criterion.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Geometric Shape Thickness Inclination Depth Eigen (W)

Shape 1 0.500 0.333 2 0.160
Thickness 2 1 0.500 3 0.278
Inclination 3 2 1 4 0.467
Depth 0.500 0.333 0.250 1 0.095
λmax = 4.031; CR = 0.011 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

Table 9. Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-group criteria of seam criterion.

Seam Lignite Contact Hanging Foot Eigen (W)

Lignite 1 3 1 2 0.351
Contact 0.333 1 0.333 0.500 0.109
Hanging 1 3 1 2 0.351
Foot 0.500 2 0.500 1 0.189
λmax = 4.031; CR = 0.011 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

Table 10. Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-group criteria of support criterion.

Support Subsidence Support Settlement Eigen (W)

Subsidence 1 2 3 0.540
Support 1 1 2 0.297
Settlement 0.333 0.5 1 0.163
λmax = 3.009; CR = 0.008 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

each criterion that is conferred with experts on this subject. In this study, the weights
are taken into account in the original study [10] as shown in Table 16.
In the main applications of this method, the decision-maker was asked to define
the membership levels of each criterion after conferring with the experts by considering
the linguistic model given in Figure 6. As an example, Table 17 shows the membership
levels of all criteria where VS: Very Strong, S: Strong, MLS: More or Less Strong, F:
Fair, MLW: More or Less Weak, W: Weak, VW: Very Weak.
The respective weights of the criteria were obtained by using proposed approach
and given in Table 18.
 16 M. Yavuz

Table 11. Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-group criteria of ore criterion.

Ore Burning Methane Hydraulic Eigen (W)

Burning 1 4 3 0.630
Methane 0.250 1 2 0.218
Hydraulic 0.333 0.500 1 0.151
λmax = 3.108; CR = 0.093 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

Table 12. Pairwise comparison matrix of sub-group criteria of cost criterion.

Cost Mining Capital Production Labour Eigen (W)

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Mining 1 1 4 8 0.421
Capital 1 1 4 8 0.421
Production 0.250 0.250 1 2 0.105
Labour 0.125 0.125 0.500 1 0.053
λmax = 4.000; CR = 0.000 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

Table 13. Pairwise comparison matrix of alternatives based on geometric shape of the lignite
deposit.

Shape A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 W
A1 1 2 0.250 0.333 0.500 0.097
A2 0.500 1 0.200 0.250 0.333 0.062
A3 4 5 1 2 3 0.417
A4 3 4 0.500 1 2 0.263
A5 2 3 0.333 0.500 1 0.160
λmax = 5.068; CR = 0.015 ≤ 0.1; OK 1.000

Table 14. Overall priorities of geometric main criterion.

Geometric Shape Thickness Inclination Depth Wmain Wgeo

A1 0.097 0.074 0.077 0.096 0.160 0.081
A2 0.062 0.081 0.051 0.158 0.278 0.071
A3 0.417 0.419 0.255 0.427 0.467 0.343
A4 0.263 0.264 0.189 0.260 0.095 0.229
A5 0.160 0.161 0.429 0.059 0.276

The final eigenvector corresponds to the weights to be associated with the member-
ships of each criterion. The exponential weighting was consequently defined from each
criterion as: α11 = 0.077, α12 = 0.134, α13 = 0.225, α14 = 0.046, α21 = 0.104, α22 = 0.032,
α23 = 0.104, α24 = 0.056, α31 = 0.034, α32 = 0.019, α33 = 0.010, α41 = 0.026, α42 =
0.009, α43 = 0.006, α51 = 0.047, α52 = 0.052, α53 = 0.012, α54 = 0.006.
The membership decision function according to Yager [29] was determined for each
alternative and given in Table 19.
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 17

Table 15. Overall results/final matrix.

Geometric Seam Support Ore Cost Overall results

A1 0.081 0.060 0.079 0.216 0.067 0.079
A2 0.071 0.072 0.095 0.098 0.050 0.072
A3 0.343 0.183 0.333 0.413 0.276 0.290
A4 0.229 0.234 0.070 0.130 0.136 0.205
A5 0.276 0.451 0.422 0.143 0.471 0.355
Main criteria weights 0.481 0.297 0.063 0.041 0.117

Table 16. Membership level of each criterion.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C11 0.800 0.750 0.950 0.900 0.850
C12 0.750 0.800 0.880 0.850 0.820
C13 0.700 0.650 0.870 0.850 0.920
C14 0.700 0.750 0.900 0.800 0.650
C21 0.550 0.600 0.700 0.750 0.800
C22 0.500 0.550 0.650 0.750 0.850
C23 0.700 0.650 0.850 0.750 0.900
C24 0.400 0.500 0.700 0.800 1.000
C31 0.650 0.750 0.850 0.600 0.950
C32 0.600 0.550 0.850 0.650 0.800
C33 0.800 0.750 0.900 0.650 0.950
C41 0.780 0.700 0.900 0.750 0.650
C42 0.500 0.720 0.800 0.600 0.850
C43 0.850 0.450 0.750 0.600 0.500
C51 0.600 0.550 0.800 0.700 0.950
C52 0.600 0.550 0.800 0.650 0.900
C53 0.750 0.700 0.820 0.800 0.900
C54 0.650 0.700 0.800 0.750 0.600

Using the max–min Bellman and Zadeh principle, the final set is determined as
below μD (A) = {A1/0.923, A2/0.908, A3/0.963, A4/0.964, A5/0.974} yielding the result:
lD ðA Þ ¼ max fld ðAi Þg ¼ 0:974
The result shows ‘Room and pillar method with filling (A5)’ method as preferable.

3.3. Sensitivity analysis for each method

A sensitivity analysis must be performed to see how sensitive the alternatives will
change with the importance of the criteria. As the priority of one of the criteria
increases, the priorities of the remaining criteria must decrease proportionately, and the
global priorities of the alternatives must be re-calculated. Sensitivity analysis can also
be used to determine the most important or critical criterion by computing the absolute
or percentage amount by which the weight of any criterion must be changed in order
to cause a switch in the ranking of either the top alternative or in any pair of alterna-
tives [35].
Increasing or decreasing values of the eigenvector of the main criterion in pairwise
comparison matrices simulated for several scenarios in AHP and FMADM methods.
There was no change in the judgment evaluations in the final priority ranking when the
 18 M. Yavuz

More or More or
Very Low Low Medium Less High High Very High
Less Low
(VL) (L) (M) (MLH) (H) (VH)
(MLL)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

0.2
0.1
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1
Figure 6. Linguistic model for fuzzy numbers [28].

Table 17. Membership level of each criterion by using linguistic assessments.

Alternatives in linguistic assessments In numerical assessments

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C11 H MLH-H VH VH H-VH 0.80 0.75 0.95 0.95 0.85
C12 MLH-H H H-VH H-VH H 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.80
C13 MLH-H MLH H-VH H-VH VH 0.75 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.95
C14 MLH MLH-H VH H MLH 0.65 0.75 0.95 0.80 0.65
C21 M M-MLH MLH-H MLH-H H 0.50 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.80
C22 M M-MLH H-MLH MLH-H H-VH 0.50 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85
C23 MLH-H MLH H-MLH MLH-H VH 0.75 0.65 0.85 0.75 0.95
C24 MLL-M M MLH H VH 0.45 0.50 0.65 0.80 0.95
C31 MLH MLH-H H-VH M-MLH VH 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.55 0.95
C32 MLH M-MLH H-VH MLH H 0.65 0.55 0.85 0.65 0.80
C33 H MLH-H H-VH MLH VH 0.80 0.75 0.85 0.65 0.95
C41 H MLH VH MLH-H MLH 0.80 0.65 0.95 0.75 0.65
C42 M MLH-H H M-MLH H-VH 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.55 0.85
C43 H-VH MLL-M MLH-H MLH M 0.85 0.45 0.75 0.65 0.50
C51 MLH M-MLH H MLH-H VH 0.65 0.55 0.80 0.75 0.95
C52 MLH M-MLH H MLH H-VH 0.65 0.55 0.80 0.65 0.85
C53 MLH-H MLH H-VH H VH 0.75 0.65 0.85 0.80 0.95
C54 MLH MLH-H H MLH-H M-MLH 0.65 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.55

eigenvector value of each criterion increased/decreased up to 80% in the AHP method

as shown in Figure 7. That is, the alternative A5 can always be selected as the most
convenient alternative for the UMMS, and alternative A3, A4 and A1 sequentially fol-
lowed this alternative considering the final priorities. It can be concluded from the sen-
sitivity analysis that the final result of the proposed AHP model is mainly sensible to
the decrease of Seam main criterion.
On the other hand, the final decision found by the proposed FMADM model was
compared with the simulated scenarios in Figure 8. When the priority of the all criteria
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 19

Table 18. Eigen values of criteria.

Eigen vectors
Main criterion definition Sub-criterion definition Sub Main Final
Geometric (C1) Shape (C11) 0.160 0.481 0.077
Thickness (C12) 0.278 0.134
Inclination (C13) 0.467 0.225
Depth (C14) 0.095 0.046
Seam (C2) Lignite (C21) 0.351 0.297 0.104
Contact (C22) 0.109 0.032
Hanging (C23) 0.351 0.104
Foot (C24) 0.189 0.056
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Support (C3) Subsidence (C31) 0.540 0.063 0.034

Support (C32) 0.297 0.019
Settlement (C33) 0.163 0.010
Ore (C4) Burning (C41) 0.630 0.041 0.026
Methane (C42) 0.218 0.009
Hydraulic (C43) 0.151 0.006
Cost (C5) Mining (C51) 0.421 0.117 0.047
Capital (C52) 0.421 0.052
Production (C53) 0.105 0.012
Labour (C54) 0.053 0.006

Table 19. Eigen values of criteria.

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
C11 0.983 0.978 0.996 0.992 0.988
C12 0.962 0.971 0.983 0.979 0.974
C13 0.923 0.908 0.969 0.964 0.981
C14 0.984 0.987 0.995 0.990 0.980
C21 0.939 0.948 0.963 0.970 0.977
C22 0.978 0.981 0.986 0.991 0.995
C23 0.963 0.956 0.983 0.970 0.989
C24 0.950 0.962 0.980 0.988 1.000
C31 0.986 0.990 0.995 0.983 0.998
C32 0.991 0.989 0.997 0.992 0.996
C33 0.998 0.997 0.999 0.996 0.999
C41 0.994 0.991 0.997 0.993 0.989
C42 0.994 0.997 0.998 0.995 0.999
C43 0.999 0.995 0.998 0.997 0.996
C51 0.976 0.972 0.990 0.983 0.998
C52 0.974 0.970 0.989 0.978 0.995
C53 0.997 0.996 0.998 0.997 0.999
C54 0.997 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.997
Min 0.923 0.908 0.963 0.964 0.974

are increased or decreased by 100%, the present decision does not change. It can be
concluded from the sensitivity analysis that the final result of the proposed FMADM
model is not sensitive to any criteria.

4. A Guideline for UMMS by Using Decision-Making Applications

UMMS is one of the most important decisions that mining engineers have to make.
Choosing a suitable underground mining method to extract a mineral deposit is very
 20 M. Yavuz
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis results in the AHP model for the problem.

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis results in the FMADM model for the problem.

important in terms of economics, safety and productivity of mining operations. In real

life, UMMS is one of the MADM problems and decision-makers have always some
difficulties in making the right decision in the multiple criteria environment. If the deci-
sion-makers want to solve UMMS problem by using any DM methods, they should
apply the following steps very carefully:

(1) Identify the criteria that are considered in the UMMS. Decision-makers should
either determine the criteria according to their past experiences, past studies or
use the criteria proposed by Hartman and Mutmansky [1].
(2) Determine the alternatives in the UMMS process. Decision-makers can use
UBC approach [7] or Hartman and Mutmansky selection chart [1] for determi-
nation of alternatives. Additionally, decision-makers can determine suitable
alternatives according to their past experiences or past studies.
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 21

(3) Determine the suitable DM techniques for the UMMS process. In this paper,
two simple methods, AHP and FMADM methods are explained.
(4) Group the criteria into the clusters if the number of criteria exceeds 9. In the
same way, if the number of alternatives exceeds 9, group the alternatives into
the clusters.
(5) Apply the DM methods according to algorithm. Decision-maker should take
care of CR of the pairwise comparison matrices in AHP and FMADM applica-
tions, especially.
(6) Perform sensitivity analysis at the end of the DM process in order to see how
the alternatives will change with the importance of the criteria.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

5. Conclusions
UMMS is a MADM problem and it is very difficult to select optimal underground min-
ing method because of the interaction of several subjective and objective criteria. Thus,
decision-makers have always difficulties to make a right decision on UMMS. In this
study, two similar MADM methods are used for a real UMMS problem to help the
decision-makers to eliminate the difficulties in the decision-making process. Decision
model containing four main criteria and eighteen sub-criteria for five alternatives (min-
ing methods) was developed for this study.
The results of the AHP process show that ‘Room and pillar method with filling
(A5)’ method is the optimal method for the problem. The next method was mainly Yag-
er’s FMADM method. The results of the decision-making process show that ‘Room
and pillar method with filling (A5)’ method again is the most preferred.
Although each method is general enough to deal with the multiple criteria prob-
lems, it has some limitations on the number of criteria to be handled simultaneously
because it is based on the Saaty’s method for pairwise comparison of the criteria.
Owing to these limitations results from human nature, the decision-makers can cope
with nine or less criteria. Otherwise, one cannot compare over nine criteria simulta-
neously considering both the consistency and validity of the constructed pairwise com-
parison matrices. To overcome this criteria limitation, a new approach which is slightly
modified version of Yager’s method is proposed to be used when the number of criteria
is more than nine. This approach is very effective and based on clustering the criteria.
As a result of this study; if decision-making methods can be implemented correctly,
the obtained decisions do not show significant differences between the employed meth-
ods. Decision-makers can use any decision-making method to solve decision-making
problem. However, decision-makers must support their decisions with other methods
and should do sensitivity analysis for giving more accurate decision.
It should also be noted that both of two employed methods can be resulted in the
exact solution evaluating the ratings of the alternatives on the contrary the methods
based on conventional classification charts which cannot provide any weights or ratings
for resulted alternatives.

References
[1] H.L. Hartman and J.M. Mutmansky, Introductory Mining Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, 2002.
 22 M. Yavuz

[2] S.H. Boshkov and F.D. Wright, Basic and Parametric Criteria in the Selection, Design and
Development of Underground Mining Systems, SME Mining Engineering Handbook, SME-
AIME, New York, 1973.
[3] R.G.K. Morrison, AW Philosophy of Ground Control, McGill University, Montreal, Canada,
1976.
[4] D.H. Laubscher, Selection of Mass Underground Mining Methods, Design and Operation of
Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, SME-AIME, New York, 1981.
[5] D.E. Nicholas, Method Selection-A Numerical Approach, Design and Operation of Caving
and Sublevel Stoping Mines, SME-AIME, New York, 1981.
[6] H.L. Hartmann, Introductory Mining Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1987.
[7] L. Miller-Tait, R. Panalkis, and R. Poulin, UBC mining method selection, Fourth Interna-
tional Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Calgary, 1995.
[8] A. Kesimal and A. Bascetin, Application of fuzzy multiple attribute decision making in min-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

ing operations, Mineral Resour. Eng 11 (2002), pp. 59–72.

[9] M.R. Bitarafan and M. Ataei, Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision making
tools, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 104 (2004), pp. 493–498.
[10] A. Karadogan, A. Kahriman and U. Ozer, Application of fuzzy set theory in the selection of
underground mining method, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 108 (2008), pp. 73–79.
[11] M. Yavuz and S. Alpay, Underground mining technique selection by multicriterion optimiza-
tion methods, J. Min. Sci. 44 (2008), pp. 391–401.
[12] S. Alpay and M. Yavuz, Underground mining method selection by decision making tools,
Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 24 (2009), pp. 173–184.
[13] O. Uysal and A. Demirci, Shortwall stoping versus sub-level longwall caving-retreat in ELI
coal fields, J. S. Afr. I. Min. Metall. 106 (2006), pp. 425–432.
[14] S. Alpay and M. Yavuz, A decision support system for underground mining method selec-
tion, Lect. Notes Artif. Int. 4570 (2007), pp. 334–343.
[15] C. Musingwini and R.C.A. Minnitt, Ranking the efficiency of selected platinum mining
methods using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Third International Platinum Confer-
ence ‘Platinum in Transformation’, Sun City, South Africa, 2008.
[16] M. Ataei, M. Jamshidi, F. Sereshki, and S.M.E. Jalali, Mining method selection by AHP
approach, J. S. Afr. I. Min. Metall. 108 (2008), pp. 743–751.
[17] F.S. Namin, K. Shahriar, A. Bascetin, and S.H. Ghodsypour, Practical applications from
decision-making techniques for selection of suitable mining method in Iran, Gospod. Su-
rowcami Min. 25 (2009), pp. 57–77.
[18] S. Gupta and U. Kumar, An analytical hierarchy process (AHP)-guided decision model for
underground mining method selection, Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 26 (2012), pp. 324–
336.
[19] E.S. Namin, K. Shahriar, M. Ataee-pour, and H. Dehghaniet, A new model for mining
method selection of mineral deposit based on fuzzy decision making, J. S. Afr. I. Min.
Metall. 108 (2008), pp. 385–395.
[20] R. Mikaeil, M.Z. Naghadehi, M. Ataei, and 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 (2009), pp. 349–368.
[21] M.Z. Naghadehi, R. Mikaeil, and M. Ataei, The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy pro-
cess (Fahp) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm
Bauxite Mine, Iran, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009), pp. 8218–8226.
[22] A. Azadeh, M. Osanloo, and M. Ataei, A new approach to mining method selection based
on modifying the Nicholas technique, Appl. Soft Comput. 10 (2010), pp. 1040–1061.
[23] T.L. Saaty and M.S. Ozdemir, Why the magic number seven plus or minus two, Math. Com-
put. Modell. 38 (2003), pp. 233–244.
[24] M.S. Ozdemir, Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process, Appl. Math.
Comput. 161 (2005), pp. 707–720.
[25] M. Yavuz and S. Alpay, Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision making tool
by M.R. Bitarafan and M. Ataei in the Journal of SAIMM, 104(9), pp. 493–498, J. S. Afr. I.
Min. Metall. 107, (2007) pp. 137.
[26] T.L. Saaty, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierar-
chy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000.
 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 23

[27] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, Pittsburgh, PA, 1980.
[28] C. Chen and C.M. Klein, An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems, Fuzzy
Set. Syst. 88 (1997), pp. 51–67.
[29] R.R. Yager, Fuzzy decision making including unequal objectives, Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1 (1978),
pp. 87–95.
[30] R.E. Bellman and L.A. Zadeh, Decision making in a fuzzy environment, Manage. Sci. 17
(1970), pp. 141–164.
[31] L.A. Zadeh, Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision
process, IEEE Trans. SMC 3 (1973), pp. 28–44.
[32] A. Bascetin and A. Kesimal, The study of a fuzzy set theory for the selection of an optimum
coal transportation system from pit to the power plant, Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ.
13 (1999), pp. 97–101.
[33] A. Karadogan, Selection of optimum underground mining method for Ciftalan lignite Basin,
MS thesis, Istanbul University, 2001 (In Turkish).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 07:57 31 December 2014

[34] Available at http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/xmethod/miningmethodgraphic.htm

[35] E. Triantaphyllou and A. Sánchez, A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic
multi-criteria decision making methods, Decision Sci. 28 (1997), pp. 151–194.