MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS AND USE OF IN MINING INDUSTRY

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 56 Sayı: 4, 181 - 196, 01.12.2017

Mert Mutlu Mehmet Sarı

https://doi.org/10.30797/madencilik.391953

Cited By: 10

Öz

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) includes both objective and subjective evaluation. Within the scope of this review article, the studies done in different areas of mining where multi-criteria decision making methods are used in the literature have been examined. It has been seen that these methods are used in many different areas of mining such as risk management planning process, mining equipment selection problems, mining method selection, selection of the appropriate location for the facilities, cutting method selection in natural stone quarries. With the help of multi-criteria decision making methods, alternatives in the decision making process can be ordered using appropriate scales, so MCDM can be a useful tool for guiding decision makers in the solution of different mining problems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mining problems, Multi-criteria decision making, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy, Fuzzy TOPSIS

ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMLERİ VE MADENCİLİK SEKTÖRÜNDE KULLANIMI

Öz

Çok kriterli karar verilmesi (ÇKKV) hem objektif hem de sübjektif değerlendirme içermektedir. Yapılan bu derleme çalışmasında, literatürde çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı madenciliğin farklı alanlarında yapılmış çalışmalar incelenmiştir. Söz konusu yöntemlerin risk
yönetim planlaması sürecinde kullanımından, uygun ekipman seçimi problemlerine, üretim yöntemi seçiminden, tesisler için uygun yer belirlenmesine, doğal taş ocaklarında kesme yöntemi seçimi gibi birçok farklı alanda kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Çok kriterli karar verme
yöntemleri yardımıyla karar verme sürecinde seçimi yapılmak istenilen alternatifler uygun bir ölçek kullanılarak sıralanabilmekte, böylece madencilikte karşılaşılan çeşitli problemlerin çözümünde karar vericilere yol gösterici nitelikte uygun seçenekler sunabilen faydalı birer araç
olabilmektedirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Madencilik problemleri, Çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV), Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi, Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi, Bulanık TOPSİS

Kaynakça

• Akın, A., 2015. Açık Ocak İşletmeciliğinde Pasa Döküm Sahasının Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi. Y. Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniv. FBE, Ankara.
• Alpay, S., Yavuz, M., 2009. Underground Mining Method Selection by Decision Making Tools. Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 24 (2), 173-184.
• Alp, S., Engin, T., 2011. Trafik Kazalarının Nedenleri ve Sonuçları Arasındaki İlişkinin Topsis ve Ahp Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Analizi ve Değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniv. Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 10 (19), 65-87.
• Ataei, M., 2005. Multicriteria Selection for an Alumina-Cement Plant Location in East Azerbaijan Province of Iran. J. of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 105 (7), 507-514.
• Azadeh, A., Osanloo, M., Ataei, M., 2010. A New Approach to Mining Method Selection Based on Modifying the Nicholas Technique, Applied Soft Computing, 10 (4), 1040-1061.
• Badri, A., Nadeau, S., Gbodossou, A., 2013. A New Practical Approach to Risk Management for Underground Mining Project in Quebec. J. of Loss Prevention in the Process Indust., 26 (6), 1145-1158.
• Bağcı, H., Rençber, Ö. F., 2014. Kamu Bankaları ve Halka Açık Özel Bankaların PROMETHEE Yöntemi ile Kârlılıklarının Analizi. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 38-47.
• Bakhtavar, E., 2015. Determination of Optimum Drum Shearer for Tabas Mine Using Desicion Making Process. Türkiye 24. Uluslararası Madencilik Kongresi ve Sergisi, 919-924.
• Ballı, S., Korukoğlu, S., 2009. Operating System Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Topsis Methods. Math. & Comp. Appl., 14 (2), 119-130.
• Balusa, B. C., Singam, J., 2017. Underground Mining Method Selection Using WPM and PROMETHEE. J. of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 1-7.
• Basçetin, A., 2004. An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Equipment Selection at Orhaneli Open Pit Coal Mine. Mining Technology, 113 (3), 192-199.
• Başçetin, A., Kesimal, A., 1999. Açık İşletmelerde Yükleme-taşıma Sistemi Seçiminde Yeni Bir Yaklaşım. Türkiye 16. Madencilik Kongresi, 57-64.
• Baylan, E. B., 2015. Türkiye’deki Mermer Sektörü Sorunlarının Tespit Edilip Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi Yöntemi ile Önceliklendirilmesi. Türkiye 24. Uluslararası Madencilik Kongresi ve Sergisi, 825-834.
• Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., Aghdasi, M., 2010. PROMETHEE: A Comprehensive Literatüre Review on Methodologies and Applications. European journal of Operational research, 200 (1), 198-215.
• Bender, M., Simonovic, S., 2000. A Fuzzy Compromise Approach to Water Resource Systems Planning Under Uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115 (1), 33-44.
• Bodziony, P., Kasztelewicz, Z., Sawicki, P., 2016. The Problem of Multiple Criteria Selection of the Surface Mining Haul Trucks. Archives of Mining Sciences, 61 (2), 223-243.
• Bogdanovic, D., Nikolic, D., Ilic, I., 2012. Mining Method Selection by Integrated AHP and PROMETHEE Method. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 84 (1), 219-233.
• Chang, D.Y., 1996. Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision. Optimization Techniques and Applications, 1 (1), 352-355.
• Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., 1992. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods and Applications. Springer, Verlag, Berlin, s. 536.
• Chen, C. T., 2000. Extensions of the Topsis for Group Decision Making under Fuzzy Environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114 (1), 1-9.
• Chen, C. T., Lin, C. T., Huang, S. F., 2006. A Fuzzy Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Supply Chain Management. Int. J. of Production Economies, 102 (2), 289-301.
• Cheng-Min, F., Wang R-T., 2001. Considering the Financial Ratios on the Performance Evaluation of Highway Bus Industry. Transport Reviews, 21 (4), 449-467.
• Chu, M.T., Shyu, J., Tzeng, G.H., Khosla, R., 2007. Comparison Among Three Analytical Methods for Knowledge Communities Group Decision Analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 33 (4), 1011-1024.
• Çitli N., 2006. Bulanık Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, Y. Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniv. FBE, İstanbul.
• Dağdeviren, M., Tamer, E., 2001. Tedarikçi Firma Seçiminde Analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ve 0-1 hedef programlama yöntemlerinin kullanılması. Gazi Üniv. Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fak. Dergisi, 16 (2), 41-52.
• Deng, J., 1989. Introduction to Grey System Theory. The Journal of Grey System, 1(1), 1-24.
• De-shun, L., Kai-li, X., 2011. Research on the Subjective Weight of the Risk Assessment in the Coal Mine System Based on GSPA-IAHP. Procedia Engineering, 26, 1956-1963.
• Eleren, A., Ersoy, M., 2007. Mermer Blok Kesim Yöntemlerinin Bulanık TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi. Madencilik, 46 (3), 9-22.
• Ersoy, M., 2013. The Role of Occupational Safety Measures on Reducing Accidents in Marble Quarries of Iscehisar Region. Safety Science, 57, 293-302.
• Feng, C.M., Wang, R.T., 2000. Performance Evaluation for Airlines Including the Consideration of Financial Ratios. Journal of Air Transport Management, 6, 3, 133-142.
• Fouladgar, M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Zavadskas, E. K., 2012. Risk Evaluation of Tunneling Projects. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering,12 (1), 1-12.
• Gelvez, E.J.I.R., Aldana, E.F.A.C., 2014. Mining Method Selection Metodology by Multiple Criteria Desicion Analysis-Case Study in Colombian Coal Mining. Int. Symp. of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Washington D.C. U.S.A, 3 (1), 1-11.
• Gligoric, Z., Beljic, C., Simeunovic, V., 2010. Shaft Location Selection at Deep Multiple Orebody Deposit by Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Method and Network Optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (2), 1408-1418.
• Göksu, A., 2008. Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşik Proses ve Üniversite Tercih Sıralamasında Uygulanması. Doktora Tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniv. SBE, Isparta.
• Gupta, S., Kumar, U. 2012. An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Guided Decision Model for Underground Mining Method Selection. Int. J. of Mining, Recl. and Envirn., 26 (4), 324-336.
• Günden, C., Miran, B., 2008. Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci Kullanarak Çiftçi Kararlarının Analizi. Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Dergisi, 45 (3), 195-204.
• Güner, M., Yücel, Ö. 2007. Konfeksiyon Üretiminde Temel Kriterlerin Hiyerarşik Modellenmesi İle Üretilecek En Eygun Ürünün Belirlenmesi. Gazi Üniv. Mühendislik- Mimarlık Fak. Dergisi, 22(1), 73-79.
• Hudej, M., Vujic, S., Radosavlevic, M., Ilic, S., 2013. Multi-Variable Selection of the Main Mine Shaft Location. J. of Mining Science, 49 (6), 950-954.
• Hyun, K. C., Min, S., Choi, H., Park, J., Lee, I. M., 2015. Risk Analysis using Fault-Tree Analysis (FTA) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Applicable to Shield TBM Tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 49, 121-129.
• Ignatius, J., Mustafa, A., Goh, M., 2012. Modeling Funding Allocation Problems via AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 8 (5), 3329-3340.
• Ishizaka A., Nemery P., 2013. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, p. 310.
• Kahraman, C., Yasin Ateş, N., Çevik, S., Gülbay, M., Ayça Erdoğan, S., 2007. Hierarchical Fuzzy TOPSIS Model for Selection Among Logistics Information Technologies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20 (2), 143-168.
• Karadoğan, A., Başcetin, A., Kahriman, A., Görgün, S., 2001. Bulanık Küme Teorisinin Yeraltı Üretim Yöntemi Seçiminde Kullanılabilirliği. Türkiye 17. Uluslararası Madencilik Kongresi ve Sergisi, 95-102.
• Karakaşoğlu, N., 2008. Bulanık Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve Uygulama. Y. Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniv. SBE, Denizli.
• Kazakidis, V.N., Mayer, Z., Scoble, M.J., 2004. Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Mining engineering. Mining Technology, 113 (1), 30–42.
• Kun, M., Topaloğlu, Ş., Malli, T., 2013. Evaluation of Wheel Loaders in Open Pit Marble Quarrying by Using the AHP and TOPSIS Approaches. Archives of Mining Sciences, 58 (1), 255-267.
• Kurşunoğlu, N., Önder, M., 2014. Yeraltı Maden İşletmelerinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi Yöntemi ile Uygun Vantilatör Seçimi. Türkiye 19. Kömür Kongresi, Zonguldak, 115-122.
• Kurşunoğlu, N., Önder, M., 2015. Selection of an Appropriate fan for an Underground Coal Mine Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 48, 101-109.
• Li, D.F., 2010. Topsis-Based Non-Linear Programming Methodology for Multiattribute Decision Making with Interval–Valued Instuitionistic Fuzzy Set. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 18 (2), 299-311.
• Li, X., Wang, K., Liu, L., Xin, J., Yang, H., Gao, C., 2011. Application of The Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method in Safety Evaluation of Coal Mines. Procedia Engineering, 26, 2085-2091.
• Mahdevari, S., Shahriar, K., Esfahanipour, A., 2014. Human Health and Safety Risks Management in Underground Coal Mines Using Fuzzy TOPSIS. Science of The Total Environment, 488, 85-99.
• Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Pariazar, M., Zaeri, M. S., 2007. Project Selection by Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Technique. Int. J. of Human and Social Sciences, 1 (3), 135-140.
• Merad, M. M., Verdel, T., Roy, B., Kouniali, S., 2004. Use of Multi-Criteria Decision-Aids for Risk Zoning and Management of Large Area Subjected to Mining-Induced Hazards. Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 19 (2), 125-138.
• Mobtaker, M. M., Osanloo, M., 2013. Prediction of Iron Ore Mine Closure Causes Under Uncertainty Condition, Using Vikor Technique. In: 6th Int. Conf. on Sustainable Development in the Minerals Industry, 581-588.
• Mohsen, J., Mohammad, A., Farhang, S., Esmaeil, J. S. M., 2009. The Application of AHP Approach to Selection of Optimum Underground Method. Case study: Jajarm bauxite mine (Iran), Arc. Min. Sci., 54 (1), 103-117.
• Nezarat, H., Sereshki, F., Ataei, M., 2015. Ranking of Geological Risks in Mechanized Tunneling by Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (F-AHP). Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 50, 358-364.
• Naghadehi, M. Z., Mikaeil, R., Ataei, M., 2009. The Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) Approach to Selection of Optimum Underground Mining Method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (4), 8218-8226.
• Rahimdel, M. J., Karamoozian, M., 2014. Fuzzy TOPSIS Method to Primary Crusher Selection for Golegohar Iron mine (Iran). J. of Central South Univ., 21 (11), 4352-4359.
• Saaty, T.L., 1977. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. J. of Mathematical Psychology, 15 (3), 234-281.
• Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, McGraw Hill.
• Saaty, T. L., 1990. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
• Saaty, T., 2000. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
• Saaty, T. L., Vargas, G.L., 2001. Model, Methods, Concepts & Applications of The Analytic Hierarcy Process. Denmark: Kluwer’s International Series.
• Saaty, T.L. 2008. Desicion Making with Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. of Services, 1 (1), 83-98.
• Samanta, B., Sarkar, B., Mukherjee, S. K., 2002. Selection of Opencast Mining Equipment by a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Process. Mining Technology, 111 (2), 136-142.
• Samantra, C., Datta, S., Mahapatra, S. S., 2017. A Risk-Based Decision Support Framework for Selection of Appropriate Safety Measure System for Underground Coal Mines. Int. J. of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 24 (1), 54-68.
• Sanchez, J. D. A., Gomez, A. T., 2003. Applications of Fuzzy Regression in Actuarial Analysis. The J. of Risk and Insurance, 70 (4), 665-699.
• Shariati, S., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Bashari, B. P. 2013. Mining Method Selection by Using an Integrated Model. Int. Research J. of Applied and Basic Sciences, 6 (2), 199-214.
• Shen, L., Muduli, K., Barve, A., 2015. Developing a Sustainable Development Framework in the Context of Mining Industries: AHP approach. Resources Policy, 46 (1), 15-26.
• Soba, M., K. Eren., 2011. TOPSIS Yöntemini Kullanarak Finansal ve Finansal Olmayan Oranlara göre Performans Değerlendirilmesi, Şehirlerarası Otobüs Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. Selçuk Üniv. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 21, 23-40.
• Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., Sami, A., Malekzadeh, S. B., 2010. Selection of Practical Bench Height in Open Pit Mining Using a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Solution. J. of Geology and Mining Research, 2(3), 48-59.
• Stanujkic, D., Stojanovic, S., Jovanovic, R., Magdalinovic, N. , 2013. A Framework for Comminution Circuits Design Evaluation Using Grey Compromise Programming. J. of Business Economics and Management, 14 (sup1), 188-212.
• Şengül, Ü., Eren, M., Shiraz S.E., 2012. Bulanık AHP ile Belediyelerin Toplu Taşıma Araç Seçimi. Erciyes Üniv. İİBF Dergisi, 40, 143-165.
• Tzeng, G.H., Huang, J.J., 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. United States Of America: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, p. 352.
• Uygurtürk, H., Korkmaz, T., 2012. Finansal Performansın TOPSIS Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi: Ana Metal Sanayi İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniv. İİBF Dergisi, 7 (2), 95-115.
• Vargas, G. L., 1990. An Overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Applications. European J. of Operational Research, 48 (1), 2-8.
• Wang, C., Tu, S., 2015. Selection of an Appropriate Mechanized Mining Technical Process for Thin-Coal Seam-Mining. Math. Problems in Engineering, Article No. 893232.
• Yavuz, M., İphar, M., Önce, G., 2008. The Optimum Support Design Selection by Using AHP Method for the Main Haulage Road in WLC Tuncbilek Colliery. Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 23 (2), 111-119.
• Yavuz, M., Alpay, S., 2008. Underground Mining Technique Selection by Multicriterion Optimization Methods. J. of Mining Science, 44 (4), 391-401.
• Yavuz, M., 2008. Selection of Plant Location in the Natural Stone Industry Using the Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method. J. of the South African Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, 108 (10), 641-649.
• Yavuz, M., 2011. Bulanık AHP Yöntemi ile Açık Ocak Kamyon Seçimi. Türkiye 22. Uluslararası Madencilik Kongresi ve Sergisi, Ankara, 63-71.
• Yavuz, M., 2015. The Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Yager’s method in Underground Mining Method Selection Problem. Int. J. of Mining, Recl. and Envirn., 29 (6), 453-475.
• Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S. H., 2012. Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Selection Using Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Making Methods. Tunnelling and Underground Space Techn., 30, 194-204.
• Yılmaz, F., Alp, S., 2016. Underlying Factors of Occupational Accidents: The case of Turkey. Open J. of Safety Science and Techn., 6, 1-10.
• Yong, D., 2006. Plant Location Selection Based on Fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Techn. 28 (7), 839-844.
• Yücel, M., Ulutaş, A., 2009. Çok Kriterli Karar Yöntemlerinden Electre Yöntemiyle Malatya’da Bir Kargo Firmasi İçin Yer Seçimi. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, (17), 327-344.
• Zhang G., Zou P.X.W., 2007. Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process Risk Assessment Approach for Joint Venture Construction Projects in China. J. of Construction Engineering and Management, 133 (10), 771-779.
• Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., Poh, K. L., 2006. Decision Analysis in Energy and Environmental Modeling: An Update. Energy, 31 (14), 2604-2622.
• Zhou, W., Yin, W., Peng, X., Liu, F., & Yang, F., 2016. Comprehensive Evaluation of Land Reclamation and Utilisation Schemes Based on a Modified VIKOR Method for Surface Mines. Int. J. of Mining, Recl. and Envirn., 1-16.