149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 741

Mining method selection by AHP approach

by M. Ataei*, M. Jamshidi*, F. Sereshki*, and S.M.E. Jalali*

Synopsis
One of the most critical and complicated steps in mine design is a suitable mining method selection based upon geological, geotechnical, geographical and economical parameters. Since there are many factors involved in mining method selection, the decisionmaking process is very difficult. In this paper, the Analytical Hierarchy Process, with 13 criteria, is used to develop a suitable mining method for the Golbini No. 8 deposit in Jajarm (Iran). Six alternatives (conventional cut and fill, mechanized cut and fill, shrinkage stoping, sublevel stoping, bench mining, and stull stoping) are evaluated. The studies show that the suitable mining method for this deposit in the present situation is the conventional cut and fill method.

properties, and engineering judgement has a greet effect on the decision in such versatile work as mining. Although experience and engineering judgement still provide major input into the selection of a mining method, subtle differences in the characteristics of each deposit can usually be perceived only through a detailed analysis of the available data. It becomes the responsibility of the geologists and engineers to work together to ensure that all factors are considered in the mining method selection process. Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart of this study.

T r a n s a c t i o n

P a p e r

Analytical hierarchy process

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multiattribute decision-making (MADM) technique, first developed in 1980 by Thomas L. Saaty. It is a tool to combine qualitative and quantitative factors in the selection of a process and is used for setting priorities in a complex, unanticipated, multi-criteria problematic situation. AHP provides a flexible and easy to understand way of analysing complicated problems. Therefore, AHP gives managers a rational basis for decision-making. It becomes quit popular in research because its utility outweighs other rating methods (Eddi and Hang, 2001). The AHP technique has been accepted by the international scientific community as a robust and flexible multicriteria decision-making tool for dealing with complex decision problems (Elkarmi and Mustafa, 1993). The AHP model has found numerous and diverse applications and is practised successfully. This methodology has been applied to numerous decision problems

Introduction
Mining method selection is one of the most critical and problematic activities of mining engineering. The ultimate goals of mining method selection are maximizing companys profit and recovery of the mineral resources and providing a safe environment for the miners by selecting the suitable method with the fewest problems among the feasible alternatives. Selection of an appropriate mining method is a complex task that requires consideration of many technical, economical, political, social, and historical factors. The appropriate mining method is the method that is technically feasible for the ore geometry and ground conditions, while also being a low-cost operation. There is no single appropriate mining method for a deposit. Usually two or more feasible methods are possible. Each method entails some inherent problems. Consequently, the optimal method is the one that offers the fewest problems. The approach of adopting the same mining method as that of the neighbouring operation is not always appropriate. However, this does not mean that one cannot learn from comparing mining plans of existing operations in the same district, or of similar deposits. Each orebody is unique with its own
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 108

* Shahrood University of Technology. The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2008. SA ISSN 0038223X/3.00 + 0.00. Paper received April 2007; revised paper received October 2008.
REFEREED PAPER DECEMBER 2008

741

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 742

Mining method selection by AHP approach

such as software selection, sourcing decisions, energy policy, supplier selection, project selection, measuring business performance, and evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology. The main advantage of AHP is its ability to handle complex and ill-structured problems, which cannot usually be handled by rigorous mathematical models. In addition to simplicity, ease of use, flexibility and intuitive appeal, the ability to mix qualitative and quantitative criteria in the same decision framework has led to AHPs power and popularity as a decision-making tool (Wedley, 1990). Three features of AHP differentiate it from other decisionmaking approaches: (i) its ability to handle both tangible and intangible attributes, (ii) its ability to structure the problems in a hierarchical manner to gain insights into the decisionmaking process, and (iii) its ability to monitor the consistency with which a decision maker uses his/her judgement. The three steps of AHP are decomposition, comparative judgement and synthesis. In the first step, a hierarchical structure is established to present the problem. The next step compares factors at the same level in pairs and measures their comparative contribution to the main objective. A comparison matrix was set up by comparing pairs of criteria or alternatives. A scale of values ranging from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extreme more important) was used to express evaluators preferences. This pairwise comparison enables the decision maker to measure the contribution of each factor to the objective independently, thereby simplifying the decision-making process. The final step synthesizes priorities to calculate a composite weight for each alternative, based on preferences derived from the comparison matrix. Basically, AHP has three underlying concepts: (i) structuring the complex decision problem as a hierarchy of goal, criteria, and alternatives, (ii) pairwise comparison of elements at each level of the hierarchy to each criterion on the preceding level, and (iii) vertically synthesizing the judgements over the different levels of the hierarchy (Saaty, 1980 and 1990). The solution process consists of three stages, namely: (i) determination of the relative importance of the attributes; (ii) determination of the relative importance of each of the alternatives with respect to each attribute; (iii) overall priority weight determination of each of these alternatives. AHP attempts to estimate the impact of each one of the alternatives on the overall objective of the hierarchy. An AHP can enable decision makers to represent the interaction of multiple factors in complex situations. The process requires the decision makers to develop a hierarchical structure for the factors which are explicit in the given problem and to provide judgements about the relative importance of each of these factors, and ultimately to specify a preference for each decision alternative with respect to each factor. The process provides a prioritized rank order indicating the overall degree of preference for each decision alternative. The AHP approach has many different uses for solving problems; some of mining uses of this method are illustrated in Table I. In this paper, the AHP approach with 13 criteria is used to develop a suitable mining method for the Golbini No.8 of Jajarm bauxite mine in Iran. A flowchart of the mining method selection by this method is shown in Figure 1.

Identification of main factors related to mining method selection

There are too many factors related to mining method selection such as geological and geotechnical properties, economic parameters, and geographical factors. It is very difficult to formulate definite criteria for the method selection that can satisfy all conditions of the mining simultaneously. Therefore it seems clear that only an experienced engineer, who has improved his experience by working in several mines and gaining skills in different methods, can make a logical decision about mining method selection. Characteristics that have major impacts on mining method selection include: Physical and mechanical characteristics of the deposit such as ground conditions of the ore zone, hangingwall, footwall, ore thickness, general shape, dip, plunge, depth, grade distribution, quality of resource, etc. The basic components that define the ground conditions are: rock material shear strength, natural fractures and discontinuities shear strength, orientation, length, spacing and location of major geologic structures, in situ stress, hydrologic conditions, etc.

Table I

Some applications of AHP in mining Engineering area

Application areas No. of attributes (No. sub-attributes)
4 (13) 8 9 6 (36) 11 5 4 (10) 15 4 3 (5) 2 (4) 7 5

No. of alternatives
3 9 4 5 3 5 4 7 2 8 4 5 6

Proposed by
Kumar Dey, 2008 Yavuz. et al. 2008 Bascetin. 2007 Alpay and Yavuz. 2007 Chen and Liu. 2006 Ataei, 2005 Bascetin. 2004 Bitarafan and Ataei 2004 Marinoni. 2004 Sadiq. 2004 Bascetin. 2003 Samanta et al. 2002 Hertwich. 1997

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Site selection for limestone quarry expansion Optimum support design selection Environmental reclamation of an open pit mine Underground mining method selection Rock mass classification on tunnel engineering Aluminacement plant location Equipment selection at open pit mine Mining method selection Implementation of the AHP with VBA in ArcGIS Drilling waste discharges Optimal equipment selection in open pit mining Selection of opencast mining equipment Evaluating the environmental impact of products

742

DECEMBER 2008

VOLUME 108

REFEREED PAPER

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 743

Mining method selection by AHP approach

Economic factors such as capital cost, operating cost, mineable ore tonnage, orebody grades and mineral value Technical factors such as mine recovery, flexibility of methods, machinery and mining rate Productivity factors such as annual productivity, equipment, efficiency and environmental considerations.

Questionnaire design and results of survey

As mentioned before, a large number of factors has an impact on mining method selection. This large number of criteria leads to (i) computational difficulty in making the pairwise comparisons in AHP, (ii) a time-consuming process and (iii) an unrealistic outcome. To overcome these problems, the main criteria or factors for method selection must be identified. For this reason a survey was conducted which 17 experts selected from different functional areas. They were all directly involved in the mine planning and design process. The objective of this survey was to assess the importance of the above-mentioned factors as criteria to be incorporated in the AHP model for the selection of a mining method. For this purpose, a questionnaire with a five-point scale for each of the factors/criteria relating to the mining method selection was drawn up (Table II), and respondents were asked to rate a factor according to this scale. The mean value of each factors/criteria was calculated as , where xi is the number of respondents who picked a given rating associated with a particular factor, fj is the corresponding of that rating and N is the total number of

T r a n s a c t i o n

P a p e r

Figure 1Flowchart of mining method selection by AHP approach

Table II

Questionnaire with five-point scale to assess the importance of each factor

Criterion 1 None
RMR of hangingwall RMR of footwall RMR ore Depth Deposit dip Deposit thickness Deposit shape Mechanizability Technology Ventilation Underground water Expert labour (miner) Subsidence Deposit size Investment Recovery Production Ore uniformity Cost Health/safety Environmental impacts Stability Selectivity Dilution Flexibility Ore grade

2 Minor

Importance 3 Substantial

4 Fundamental

5 Highest

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

VOLUME 108

REFEREED PAPER

DECEMBER 2008

743

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 744

Mining method selection by AHP approach

respondents. The results of the survey are given in Table III. Half of the criteria that had the highest average and standard deviation less than 1.2 are considered to indicate important criteria for mining method selection. These criteria are considered the most important criteria for formulating the AHP model. Table IV and Figure 2 show the weight and normalized weight of these criteria. It was found that deposit thickness is most important (priority = 0.091) and it is followed by RMR of hangingwall and deposit dip (priority = 0.087). team to discuss and determine the relative importance of each of the elements in the hierarchy. Each element in a level is compared pairwise with other elements at the same level, with respect to a criterion element at a higher level. The pairwise comparison is based on a scale of 1 to 9 as per the definition of weights given in Table V. A verbal scale is used

Selection of mining method

For Golbini No.8 of the Jajarm mine conditions, six mining methods that were possible and appropriate to this mine, were considered. These methods are: conventional cut and fill (C&Fc), mechanized cut and fill (C&Fm), shrinkage stoping (SH), sub level stoping (SLS), bench mining (BM) and stull stoping (SS). A weight was assigned to each method, based on the studied mine condition. This was done through a pairwise comparison. The pairwise comparisons were made with the aid of a scale. The scale used in AHP for preparing the pairwise comparison matrix is a discrete scale from 1 to 9 (Table V). The step was to find the relative priorities of alternatives implied by this comparison. The hierarchy developed in this study consists of three levels. The top level represents the goal of selecting. The last level is represented by 13 criteria and the third level constitutes 6 alternatives (mining methods). The use of this AHP model requires the owners project

Priority

Criteria

Figure 2Comparison of attributes

Table V

Pairwise comparison scale

Comparison index
Extremely preferred Very strongly preferred Strongly preferred Moderately preferred Equal Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments

Score
1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6,8

Table III

The results of the survey

Criteria
Deposit thickness RMR of hangingwall Deposit dip Deposit shape Deposit size RMR of ore Ore grade Investment Ore uniformity Recovery Production Stability RMR of footwall

Average
4.71 4.53 4.53 4.47 4.13 3.94 3.89 3.83 3.83 3.81 3.78 3.73 3.72

Standard deviation
0.47 0.72 0.62 0.74 1.26 1.00 1.02 1.20 0.99 0.98 1.17 1.28 1.13

Criteria
Technology Depth Dilution Environmental impacts Ventilation Selectivity Health/safety Mechanizability Cost Flexibility Subsidence Underground water Expert labour (miner)

Average
3.56 3.56 3.56 3.50 3.44 3.35 3.24 3.22 3.20 3.06 3.00 2.94 2.78

Standard deviation
0.92 0.92 1.15 1.21 1.34 1.11 1.25 1.22 1.21 1.12 1.03 1.00 0.73

Table IV

Weight and normalized weight of the most important criteria

Criterion
C1: Deposit thickness C2: RMR of hangingwall C3: Deposit dip C4: Deposit shape C5: RMR of ore C6: Ore grade C7: Ore uniformity

Weight
4.71 4.53 4.53 4.47 3.94 3.89 3.83

Normalized weight
0.091 0.087 0.087 0.084 0.076 0.075 0.074

Criterion
C8: Recovery C9: Production C10: RMR of footwall C11: Technology C12: Depth C13: Dilution

Weight
3.81 3.78 3.72 3.56 3.56 3.56

Normalized weight
0.073 0.073 0.072 0.069 0.069 0.069

744

DECEMBER 2008

VOLUME 108

REFEREED PAPER

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 745

Mining method selection by AHP approach

in AHP that enables the decision-maker to incorporate subjectivity, experience, and knowledge in an intuitive and natural way. After comparison, matrices are created; relative weights are derived for the various elements. The relative weights of the elements of each level with respect to an element in the adjacent upper level are computed as the components of the normalized eigenvector associated with the largest eigenvalue of their comparison matrix. Composite weights are then determined by aggregating the weights through the hierarchy. This is done by following a path from the top of the hierarchy to each alternative at the lowest level, and multiplying the weights along each segment of the path. The outcome of this aggregation is a normalized vector of the overall weights of the options. The next stage is calculation of the weight of criteria and alternatives. There are different ways to calculate of the weight such as least squares, logarithmic least squares, specific vector and estimating methods. The specific vector method is more watchful than other methods. In this method define Wi navigate to A.W = .W. is the specific quantity and W is the specific vector of pairwise matrix A. When the size of the matrix becomes larger, calculation of these quantities is really time-consuming. After determining the weight of each criterion that obtain based upon questionnaire result, the comparison of each method based on a particular criterion is placed in the matrix. So 13 matrices are formed. Since the number of methods is six, the order of matrices is 6 6. Figures 315 present pairwise comparisons of the methods according to the each of the attributes. AHP consistency is known as the consistency ratio (CR). This consistency ratio simply reflects the consistency of the pairwise judgements. For example, judgements should be transitive in the sense that if A is considered more important than B, and B more important than C, then A should be more important than C. If, however, the user rates A as important as C, the comparisons are inconsistent and the user should

T r a n s a c t i o n

P a p e r

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 3Comparison of methods with reference to thickness

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 4Comparison of methods with reference to RMR of hangingwall

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 5Comparison of methods with reference to deposit dip

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 108 REFEREED PAPER DECEMBER 2008

745

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 746

Mining method selection by AHP approach

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 6Comparison of methods with reference to deposit shape

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 7Comparison of methods with reference to RMR of ore

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 8Comparison of methods with reference to ore grade

Figure 9Comparison of methods with reference to ore uniformity

746

DECEMBER 2008

VOLUME 108

REFEREED PAPER

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 747

Mining method selection by AHP approach

T r a n s a c t i o n

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 10Comparison of methods with reference to recovery

Priority

P a p e r

Mining methods

Figure 11Comparison of methods with reference to production

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 12Comparison of methods with reference to RMR of footwall

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 13Comparison of methods with reference to technology

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 108 REFEREED PAPER DECEMBER 2008

747

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 748

Mining method selection by AHP approach

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 14Comparison of methods with reference to depth

Priority

Mining methods

Figure 15Comparison of methods with reference to dilution

revisit the assessment. The consistency index (CI) of the pairwise comparison matrix is computed as: [1] where max maximum or principal eigenvalue and n is the size of the pairwise matrix. The random consistency index (RI) is given by:

[2] The consistency ratio is given by [3] The weight,

max,

consistency index, random consistency

Table VI

Weight, , CI, RI and CR of matrices

Index Factor

Weight
1 0.091 0.0875 0.0875 0.0838 0.0761 0.0752 0.0741 0.0737 0.073 0.0719 0.0216 0.0622 0.0216

max

CI
4.15E-11 0.062 0 0.0641 0.021 0.0831 0.0791 0 0.0936 0.0532 0 0.1187 0.0664 0.0059

RI
1.6754 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32

CR
0 0.047 0 0.0485 0.0159 0.063 0.0599 0 0.0709 0.0403 0 0.0899 0.0503 0.0044

Goal C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13

13 6.31 6 6.3204 6.1051 6.4155 6.3954 6 6.4682 6.2662 6 6.5934 6.1328 6.0293

Figure 16Overall rating

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

748

DECEMBER 2008

VOLUME 108

REFEREED PAPER

149_Ataei:Template Journal

12/15/08

11:23 AM

Page 749

Mining method selection by AHP approach

index and consistency ratio of criteria and goal are given in Table VI. From Table VI it is found that the consistency index and consistency ratio for all parameters are less than 10%. This indicates that the committee is exhibiting coherent judgement in specifying the pairwise comparison of the criteria or alternatives. Figure 16 presents the composite ranking of the methods in graphical form. It is seen from the figure that the method, conventional cut and fill, with a rating of 0.2886 is most preferred and is followed by mechanize cut and fill, sublevel stoping, shrinkage, stull stoping and bench mining methods.
BASCETIN, A. Decision support system using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for the optimal environmental reclamation of an open-pit mine. Environmental Geology 2007, vol. 52, no. 4. pp. 663672. BITARAFAN, M. and ATAEI, M. Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision making tools. The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2004, vol. 104, no. 9. pp. 493498. CHEN, C. and LIU Y. A methodology for evaluation and classification of rock mass quality on tunnel engineering 2007, vol. 22 no. 4. pp. 377387. CHING, L. and CHAO, C. A new approach for application of rock mass classification on rock slope stability assessment, Journal of Engineering Geology 2007, vol. 89, pp. 129143. EDDI, W. and HANG, L. Analytic hierarchy process, an approach to determine measures for business performance. Measuring Business Performance 2001, vol. 5, no. 3. pp. 3036. ELKARMI, F. and MUSTAFA, I. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan. Energy Policy 1993, vol. 21. pp. 978984. HERTWICH, E., PEASE, W. and KOSHLAND, C. Evaluating the environmental impact of products and production processes: A comparison of six methods. The Science of the Total Environment 1997, vol. 196. pp. 1329. KUMAR, P. and RAMCHARAN, K. Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. Journal of Environmental Management. 2008 In Press, Corrected proof. MARINONI, O. Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in ArcGIS. Computers & Geosciences 2004, vol. 30, no. 6. pp. 637646. SAATY, T. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1980. SAATY, T. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operations Research. 1990, vol. 48. pp. 926. SADIQ, R., HUSAIN, T., VEITCH, B. and BOSE, N. Risk-based decision-making for drilling waste discharges using a fuzzy synthetic evaluation technique. Ocean Engineering 2004, vol. 31, no. 16. pp. 19291953. SAMANTA, B., SARKAR, B. and MUKHERJEE, S. Selection of opencast mining equipment by a multi-criteria decision-making process. Transaction Institution of Mining and Metallurgy 2002, vol. 111. pp. A136A142. WEDLEY, W. Combining qualitative and quantitative factorsan analytic hierarchy approach. Socio Econ Plan Sci, 1990, vol. 24. pp. 11422.

T r a n s a c t i o n

Conclusion
Mining method selection involves the interaction of several subjective factors or criteria. Decisions are often complicated and many even embody contradiction. In this study, it was found that the Deposit thickness was the most important factor (priority = 0.091) for the selection of a suitable mining method, followed by the RMR of hangingwall and deposit dip (priority = 0.087). From six alternatives that were studied, conventional cut and fill was the most appropriate on consideration of all 13 factors in the mining method selection process. Unlike the traditional approach to mining method selection, AHP makes it is possible to select the best method in a more scientific manner that preserves integrity and objectivity. The model is transparent and easy to comprehend and apply by the decision maker. For selecting a mining method, the AHP model is unique in its identification of multiple attributes, minimal data requirement, and minimal time consumption.

P a p e r

References
ALPAY, S and YAVUZ, M. A decision support system for underground mining method selection. IEA/AIE, LNAI 4570/ 2007; pp. 334343. ATAEI, M. Multicriteria selection for aluminacement plant location in EastAzerbaijan province of Iran. The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2005, vol. 105, no. 7. pp. 507514. BASCETIN, A. A decision support system for optimal equipment selection in open pit mining: analytical hierarchy process. Geology Department, Faculty of Engineering, Istanbul University 2003, vol. 16, no. 2. pp. 111. BASCETIN, A. An application of the analytic hierarchy process in equipment selection at Orhaneli open pit coal mine, Mining Technology. Transaction Institution of Mining and Metallurgy 2004, pp. A192A199.

YAVUZ, M. and IPHAR, M. Once G. The optimum support design selection by using AHP method for the main haulage road in WLC Tuncbilek colliery. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2008; In Press, Corrected proof.

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

VOLUME 108

REFEREED PAPER

DECEMBER 2008

749