Underground mining method assessment using decision-making techniques in a fuzzy environment: case study, Trepça mine, Kosovo

Gzim Ibishi¹, Mahmut Yavuz², Melih Genis³

¹Mitrovica Isa Boletini University, Mitrovica, 40000, Kosovo

²Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, 26000, Turkey

³Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, 26000, Turkey

Min. miner. depos. 2020, 14(3):134-140

https://doi.org/10.33271/mining14.03.134

Full text (PDF)

      ABSTRACT

      Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to reevaluate the currently used underground mining method with the intention to verify if cut-and-fill stoping method is appropriate for deep future excavation mining levels > 800 m below the ground sur-face.

      Methods. Decision-making methods i.e., Analytical Hierarch Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision-making Methods (FMADM), and UBC selection tool are implemented.

      Findings. According to UBC approach six alternatives – Block Caving, Cut-and-Fill Stoping, Sub-level Caving, Sub-level Stoping, Square Set Stoping, and Top Slicing have been considered as technically feasible alternatives. Results shows that cut-and-fill stoping method is the optimal mining method for deep excavation mining levels. Optimal underground mining method for Trepça mine due to the priority of this alternative (0.443) is the highest value compared with the other alternatives.

      Originality.This study attempts to find most suitable underground mining method among the possible alternatives based on AHP and FMADM techniques.

      Practical implications. In mine planning and design stage, mining method selection (MMS) for a mineral deposit is one of the most critical and challenging decision that experts have to make mainly based on geological, economical and geotechnical properties of the ore deposit.

      Keywords: Mining method, UBC method, AHP method, FMADM method, Trepça mine

      REFERENCES

1. Yavuz, M., Iphar, M., & Once, G. (2008). The optimum support design selection by using AHP method for the main haulage road in WLC Tuncbilek colliery. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 23(2), 111-119.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.02.001
2. Ataei, M., Jamshidi, M., Sereshki, F., & Jalali, S.M.E. (2008). Mining method selection by AHP approach. The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, (108), 741-749.
3. Iphar, M., & Alpay, S. (2018). A mobile application based on multi-criteria decision-making methods for underground mining method selection. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 33(7), 480-504.https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2018.1467655
4. Karadogan, A., Bascetin, A., Kahriman, A., & Gorgun, S. (2001). A new approach in selection of underground mining methods. In International Conference on Modern Management of Mine Producing Geology and Environment Protection (p. 171-183). Bulgaria.
5. Bitarafan, M.R., & Ataei, M. (2004). Mining method selection by multiple criteria decision making tools. The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 493-498.
6. Karadogan, A., Kahriman, A., & Ozer, U. (2008). Application of fuzzy set theory in the selection of underground mining method. The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, (108), 73-79.
7. Jamshidi, M., Ataei, M., Sereshki, F., & Jalali, S.M.E. (2009). The application of AHP approach to selection of optimum underground mining method, case study: Jajarm Bauxite Mine (Iran). Achieves of Mining Sciences, 54(1), 103-117.
8. Alpay, S., & Yavuz, M. (2009). Underground mining method selection by decision making tools. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24(2), 173-184.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.07.003
9. Yavuz, M. (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, 29(6), 453-475.https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2014.895218
10. Kabwe, E. (2017). Optimal mining method selection for Nchanga’s Upper Orebody using analytic hierarchy process and Yager’s method. Mining Technology, 126(3), 151-162.https://doi.org/10.1080/14749009.2016.1274840
11. Saaty, T.L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburg, United States: RWS Publications.
12. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, United States: McGraw-Hill.
13. Triantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 151-194.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x
14. Yager, R.R. (1978). Fuzzy decision making including unequal objectives. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(2), 87-95.https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(78)90010-6
15. Bellman, R.E., & Zadeh, L.A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17(4), 141-164.https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.4.b141
16. Zadeh, L.A. (1973). Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3(1), 28-44.https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.1973.5408575
17. Miller-Tait, L., Panalkis, R., & Poulin, R. (1995). UBC mining method selection. Fourth International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection. Calgary, Canada.
18. Nicholas, D.E. (1981). Method selection – a numerical approach, design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines. New York, United States: SME-AIME.
19. Forgan, C.B. (1936). Trepca mines limited II: Essential geological features of the Stan Trg lead-zinc ore body. Mining and Metallurgy, 481-484.
20. Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989). Engineering rock mass classification. New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons.
21. Hoek, E., & Marinos, P. (2000). Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses. Tunnels and Tunnellig International, 1-21.
22. EduMine. (1999). Mining method selection (online tool). Retrieved from:http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/xmethod/miningmethodgraphic.htm