See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317591499

Underground Mining Method Selection Using WPM and PROMETHEE

Article · April 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s40033-017-0137-0

CITATIONS READS

7 372

2 authors:

Bhanu Chander Balusa Singam Jayanthu

Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, RORUKELA
6 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SLOPE STABILITY ISSUES- DESIGN, MONITORING (NALCO-MOIL-PANNA DIAMOND)-EXPLOSIVE-BLASTING - IDL-UAIL-JPL-; FLY ASH FO RUG AND OCM AT SCCL-BHP-KTK 5
INCL-KTK OC-AND OTHER INCLUDING MINISTRY OF MINES-GOI- SPONSORED WSN-TDR SYSTEM OF SLOPE MONITORING View project

Development of TDR based wireless system for slope monitoring in opencast mines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bhanu Chander Balusa on 18 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
DOI 10.1007/s40033-017-0137-0
CASE STUDY
Underground Mining Method Selection Using WPM
and PROMETHEE
Bhanu Chander Balusa1 . Jayanthu Singam1
Received: 25 October 2016 / Accepted: 4 April 2017
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2017
Abstract The aim of this paper is to represent the solution
to the problem of selecting suitable underground mining
method for the mining industry. It is achieved by using two
multi-attribute decision making techniques. These two
techniques are weighted product method (WPM) and
preference ranking organization method for enrichment
evaluation (PROMETHEE). In this paper, analytic hierar-
chy process is used for weight’s calculation of the attri-
butes (i.e. parameters which are used in this paper). Mining
method selection depends on physical parameters,
mechanical parameters, economical parameters and tech-
nical parameters. WPM and PROMETHEE techniques
have the ability to consider the relationship between the
parameters and mining methods. The proposed techniques
give higher accuracy and faster computation capability
when compared with other decision making techniques.
The proposed techniques are presented to determine the
effective mining method for bauxite mine. The results of
these techniques are compared with methods used in the
earlier research works. The results show, conventional cut
and fill method is the most suitable mining method.
Keywords Underground mining method selection 
Multi-attribute decision making techniques  WPM 
PROMETHEE  AHP
& Bhanu Chander Balusa
bhanuchanderbalusa@gmail.com
1
Mining Engineering Department, National Institute
Technology Rourkela, Rourkela 769008, Odisha, India
Introduction
Extraction of minerals from the earth is called mining. Mining
is of two types, opencast and underground mining. Depending
on the ore body characteristics any one of the mining method
will be selected. When mining is carried below the surface of
the earth is called the underground mining. Underground
mining depends on many physical, mechanical, economical
and technical parameters. These parameters may be qualita-
tive and quantitative. Hence, underground mining method
selection falls under multi-attribute decision making work.
Many multi-attribute decision making techniques are avail-
able such as simple additive weighted (SAW), weighted
product method (WPM), analytical hierarchy process (AHP),
technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solu-
tion (TOPSIS), preference ranking organization method for
enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE), graph theory and
matrix approach (GTMA) etc. In the proposed work, WPM
and PROMETHEE are selected for best underground mining
method selection for an ore body. The proposed techniques
are very accurate in the evaluation process and give the
optimum results.
The decision-making techniques were used by many
researchers in different fields of engineering, technology,
and science. In 1981 Nicholas has presented the first
quantitative technique for underground mining method
selection. Most of the researchers use the Nicholas tech-
niques as a base for research works. The research works on
underground mining method selection using multi-attribute
decision-making techniques are as follows: Azadeh et al.
[1] used fuzzy AHP for mining method selection by
modifying Nicholas technique for Choghart iron mine.
Alpay and Yavuz [2] used decision support system and
AHP for the selection of underground mining method at
Eskisehir–Karaburun chromite mine. Naghadehi et al. [3]
123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

used fuzzy AHP for mining method selection at Jajarm (mij)L/(mij)K has to be calculated among all the
Bauxite mine. Samimi Namin et al. [4] used fuzzy TOPSIS alternatives with in the same attribute.
for mining method selection and examined the model for
Step 3 Weights calculation of attributes based on Rela-
GEG anomaly No. 3 and Chahar Gonbad mine. Yavuz [5]
tive Importance Matrix by AHP method.
used AHP and yager’s method for selection of underground
Step 4 Power the normalized data with the corresponding
mining for Ciftalan lignite mine in Istanbul. Shariati et al.
weight of the attribute and multiply the powered
[6] used fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS for mining method
values in the row (i.e. every row indicating with
selection for Angouran mine in Iran. Jamshidi et al. [7]
one alternate) as specified in the Eq. (1). Where wj
used the AHP to select the optimal underground mining
is the weight of the attribute
method in the Jajarm bauxite mine. Bogdanovic et al. [8]
used the PROMETHEE and AHP methods to choose an Y
M   w
Pi ¼ mij : ð1Þ
appropriate mining method in the Coka Marin mine in normal j
j¼1
Serbia. Gelvez and Aldana [9] applied the AHP and the
VIKOR methods to select optimum mining method in the Step 5 Rank the alternatives based on their scores or
coal mine in Colombia. Karimnia and Bagloo [10] used value’s.
AHP to choose the better mining method at a salt mine in
Iran. Lv and Zhang [11] predicted a suitable mining
method for thin coal seam by using artificial neural net-
PROMETHEE
works. Chen and Tu [12] applied AHP and PROMATE-
HEE methods for selecting the most suitable technique for
Preference ranking organization method for enrichment
mechanized mining in a thin coal mine in china.
evaluations (PROMETHEE) was developed by Brans et al.
[14] and is a type of outranking method. In this paper,
improved PROMETHEE proposed by Rao [15] is used.
Weighted Product Method
The procedure of improved PROMETHEE as follows
Weighted product method (WPM) is a multi-attribute Step 1 Identify the attributes and alternatives for the
decision-making technique. The procedure of WPM is as decision-making problem. A quantitative or qual-
follows [13]. itative value to be assigned to each selected
attribute. The identified alternatives will be
Step 1 Identify the alternatives and attributes for the
evaluated using the proposed technique. The
decision-making problem. A quantitative or qual-
values of the selected attributes for selected
itative value to be assigned to each selected
alternatives are based on the available data or
attribute. The identified alternatives will be
may be the estimations made by the decision
evaluated using the proposed technique. The
maker.
values of the selected attributes for selected
Step 2 Weights of the selected attributes are decided by
alternatives are based on the available data or
AHP method.
may be the estimations made by the decision
Step 3 Preparation of dominance matrices for the
maker.
attributes used in the problem-solving. Domi-
Step 2 Normalize the given data based on beneficiary and
nance matrix is prepared in between the alterna-
non-beneficiary attributes of the decision matrix.
tives with respect to each attribute based on step
Let the value of the attribute be denoted by mij.
1 data. Preparation of dominance matrix follows
• If the attribute is the beneficiary, normalized the below procedure.
values can be calculated by (mij)K/(mij)L. Here
• Assume M attributes and n alternatives, such
(mij)K represents the K-th alternative, and
that there will be M dominance matrices of the
(mij)L represents the L-th alternative which is
size n 9 n.
the highest attribute value among all the
• Identify the beneficiary and non-beneficiary
alternatives. And (mij)K/(mij)L has to be cal-
attributes.
culated among all the alternatives within the
• The comparison between the same alternatives
same attribute.
can be represented as blank. Hence, the
• If the attribute is non-beneficiary: normalized
diagonal elements in the dominance matrix
values can be calculated by (mij)L/(mij)K,
would be blank.
where the lowest attribute value is considered.

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

• For each attribute prepare the dominance
matrix as follows.
1. If the attribute is the beneficiary, the compar-
ing alternative has greater value than com-
pared alternative, then represents element
value with 1 otherwise 0.
2. If the attribute is non-beneficiary, the com-
paring alternative has lesser value than com-
pared alternative, then represents element
value with 1 otherwise 0.
Step 4 Multiply the corresponding elements of the
dominance matrices with their respective attri-
bute weights. Sum up the corresponding multi-
plied elements and write in the final matrix as
specified in the Eq. (2). Pa1a2 is the strength of
preference of the decision maker for alternative
‘a1’ over ‘a2’. Wj is the weight of the attribute.
Pj,a1a2 indicates the values in the dominance
matrix
X
M Y
Pa1a2 ¼ wj Pj ; a1a2 ð2Þ
j¼1
was introduced by Saaty (1980). AHP technique sub
divides the problem into different levels; the first level
describes the objective of the considered problem, the
second level describes the attributes of the objective, third
and other levels describe the sub-attributes and their sub-
attributes respectively and the last level describes the
predefined alternative of the objective. The AHP considers
several pairwise comparison matrices for attributes and
alternatives to rank the alternatives for a given problem.
Weights calculation of the attributes in the AHP are done
as follows:
Step 1 Relative importance of the attributes is repre-
sented as the pair wise comparison matrix. The
pair-wise comparison matrix is constructed based
on relative importance scale proposed by Saaty.
Relative importance scale presented in Table 1.
Assuming M attributes, the pairwise comparison
matrix yields a square matrix A M 9 M.
Step 2 Finding the relative normalized weight (wj) for
every attribute by
• Calculating geometric mean for ith row, which
is represented in Eq. (6) [13]
" #1=M
M
GMi ¼ bij ð6Þ
j¼1

Step 5 In the final matrix sum up the corresponding row • Normalizing the geometric of all rows in the
elements and sum up the corresponding column pairwise comparison matrix, which is
elements as specified in the Eqs. (3) and (4) represented in Eq. (7) [13]
respectively, where U? (a) represents row sum
and U- (a) represents column sum X
M
X Wj ¼ GMj = GMj ð7Þ
U þ ðaÞ ¼ Pxa ð3Þ
j¼1
xeA
Step 3 Calculate the matrices A3 and A4 where
X A3 = A1 9 A2 and A4 = A3/A2 (divide the
U  ðaÞ ¼ Pxa ð4Þ corresponding values in A3 matrix by
xeA
corresponding values in A2). Here A1 is the
Step 6 Prepare a net dominance matrix by subtracting pairwise comparison matrix and A2 is the
column sum from row sum as specified in the normalized weights of the attributes. The size
Eq. (5) of the A2 matrix is M 9 1.
UðaÞ ¼ Uþ ðaÞ  U ðaÞ ð5Þ
Table 1 Relative importance scale of attributes (Satty, 1980)
Step 7 Rank the results based on the net dominance
Degree of importance Definition
matrix.
1 Equal importance
3 Moderately more important
5 Strongly more important
AHP Weights Calculation
7 Very strongly important
9 Extremely strongly more important
The analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is one of the
popular technique for solving the problems related to 2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
decision making which are multi-attribute in nature and it ‘,1/3,1/4,1/5,1/6,1/7,1/8,1/9 Reciprocals of 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 2 Random index for number of attributes

RI 1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Value 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

Table 3 Score of rating scale
Rating scale
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Step 4 Calculate the Eigen value k (i.e. average of A4
matrix).
Step 5 Find the consistency index CI = (k - M)/
(M - 1).
Step 6 Consider the random index (RI) based on a
number of attributes used in the problem-solving.
RI for a number of attributes is shown in Table 2.
Step 7 Find the consistency ratio CR = CI/RI. Generally,
CR value less than or equal to 0.1 is considerable.
When CR is not less than 0.1, adjust the attribute
values in the pairwise comparison matrix and
repeat the above steps of weights calculation until
the CR value reached to less than or equal to 0.1.
Numerical Analysis
In this study, to select a suitable mining method, the WPM
and PROMETHEE techniques are used. The mining meth-
ods selected were (based on physical, mechanical, eco-
nomical and technical parameters) 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). Similarly, the parameters are deposit dip (C1),
deposit shape (C2), deposit thickness (C3), RMR of hanging
wall (C4), ore grade (C5), RMR of footwall (C6), technology
(C7), depth (C8), ore uniformity (C9), RMR of ore (C10),
dilution (C11), production (C12), recovery (C13) were
selected as the influencing parameters in the selection of
Score
mining method. In the decision matrix, the data of the attri-
5 butes for the mining methods are defined based on five-point
4 scale, as shown in Table 3 [16]. Decision matrix with these
3 mining methods and parameters were represented in Table 4
2 [16] (here the original data is converted into the score of 1–5
1 based on five-point scale). This decision matrix is obtained
with respect to the conditions of the bauxite mine.
While converting decision matrix data into normalized
data, compare the highest value of the attribute with the
remaining values of the same attribute one by one. This
comparison to be done for all the attributes.
Application of WPM
Based on beneficiary and non-beneficiary attributes of the
data in decision matrix Table 4 are converted into nor-
malized data and the normalized data is shown in Table 5.
As explained earlier, relative importance matrix defines
the pair-wise comparison matrix. The pair-wise compar-
ison matrix shows the importance of one attribute over the
other attribute. The pair-wise comparison matrix for our
proposed attributes is showed in Table 6. Consider the
importance of C1 over C2 in relative importance is ‘3’, that
means ‘C1 is moderately more important than C2’ (from
Table 1 ‘3’ defines ‘moderately more important’) and the
reverse is shown as ‘1/3’ between C2 and C1.
Weights of the attributes calculated by AHP method
based on relative importance matrix (i.e. Table 6). The CR
value of the attributes is 0.0384, which is less than 0.1.
Hence, the weights of the attributes are considerable. The
results of A3, A4 matrix, Lambda Max, CI and CR are
shown in Table 7.
The final weights of the alternatives are presented in the
Table 8 and ranks of the alternatives are identified as 1-2-
3-4-6-5.

Table 4 Decision Matrix for influencing parameters

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

Conventional cut and fill 5 3 2 3 1 4 2 5 4 2 4 4 4

Mechanized Cut and Fill 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 4
Shrinkage Stoping 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
Sublevel Stoping 2 1 2 1 5 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
Stull Stoping 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1
Bench Mining 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 5 Normalized data

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

Conventional cut and fill 1 1 1 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mechanized cut and fill 0.4 1 1 1 0.4 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1
Shrinkage Stoping 0.4 0.333 1 1 0.4 0.5 1 0.4 0.25 1 0.5 0.25 0.25
Sublevel Stoping 0.4 0.333 1 0.333 1 0.25 1 0.4 0.25 1 0.5 0.5 0.25
Stull Stoping 0.2 0.333 0.5 0.333 0.2 0.25 1 0.2 0.5 1 0.25 0.25 0.25
Bench Mining 0.2 0.333 1 0.666 0.2 0.5 1 0.2 0.25 1 0.25 0.25 0.25

Table 6 Relative importance matrix of the influencing parameters. (A1 Matrix)

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

C1 1 3 1 1 7 3 3 5 3 1 7 7 7
C2 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 5 1 1 3 1 1/3 5 5 5
C3 1 3 1 1 7 3 3 5 3 1 7 7 7
C4 1 3 1 1 7 3 3 5 3 1 7 7 7
C5 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/7 1 1 1
C6 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 5 1 1 3 1 1/3 5 5 5
C7 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 5 1 1 3 1 1/3 5 5 5
C8 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/5 3 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 1/5 3 3 3
C9 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 5 1 1 3 1 1/3 5 5 5
C10 1 3 1 1 7 3 3 5 3 1 7 7 7
C11 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/7 1 1 1
C12 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/7 1 1 1
C13 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/7 1 1 1

Table 7 Calculations of the attributes

Attributes/ Attribute weight A3 matrix results A4 matrix Table 8 Ranks of the selected methods
criteria (A2) results Alternative Score Rank
Deposit 0.156 2.082 13.329 Conventional cut and fill (C&Fc) 0.973 1
thickness
Mechanized cut and fill (C&Fm) 0.839 2
RMR of hanging 0.068 1 14.517
wall Shrinkage stoping (SH) 0.628 3
Deposit dip 0.156 2.082 13.329 Sublevel stoping (SLS) 0.518 4
Deposit shape 0.156 2.082 13.329 Bench mining (BM) 0.407 6
RMR of ore 0.016 0.221 13.332 Stull stuping (SS) 0.505 5
Ore grade 0.068 1 14.517
Ore uniformity 0.068 1 14.517
Recovery 0.032 0.449 13.636 Application of PROMETHEE
Production 0.068 1 14.517
RMR of 0.156 2.082 13.329 In the proposed work 13 parameters and 6 alternatives are
footwall identified for the selection of mining method. A total of 13
Technology 0.016 0.221 13.332 dominance matrices are developed with the size of 6 9 6.
Depth 0.016 0.221 13.332 These dominance matrices are developed based on decision
Dilution 0.016 0.221 13.332 matrix data of Table 4. Dominance matrix with respect to
Lambda max 13.719 ‘deposit thickness’ criteria is presented in Table 9. Weights
(kmax) of the attributes are considered from Table 7. The final
Consistency 0.059 matrix is represented in Table 10. Remaining calculations
index (CI) are represented in Table 11. Based on net dominance val-
Consistency ratio 0.038 ues the ranks of the alternatives are identified as 1-2-3-4-6-
(CR)
5.

123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 9 Dominance matrix for deposit thickness

Deposit thickness C&Fc C&Fm SH SLS BM SS

C&Fc – 1 1 1 1 1
C&Fm 0 – 0 0 1 1
SH 0 0 – 0 1 1
SLS 0 0 0 – 1 1
BM 0 0 0 0 – 0
SS 0 0 0 0 0 –

Table 10 Final Matrix of the mining methods

C&Fc C&Fm SH SLS BM SS

C&Fc – 0.1891 0.445 0.601 0.757 0.601

C&Fm 0.016 – 0.220 0.445 0.757 0.618
SH 0.016 0 – 0.225 0.603 0.378
SLS 0.016 0.016 0.033 – 0.395 0.238
BM 0 0 0.068 0.068 – 0.068
SS 0 0 0 0.225 0.381 –

Table 11 Results of selected methods

Method name Column sum Row sum Net dominance Rank

C&Fc 0.049 2.595 2.545 1

C&Fm 0.205 2.058 1.852 2
SH 0.767 1.223 0.456 3
SLS 1.565 0.700 -0.865 4
BM 2.895 0.206 -2.688 6
SS 1.905 0.606 -1.299 5

Table 12 Summary of mining method selection for bauxite mine

Researcher name Year Technique used Result obtained

Masoud Zare Naghadehi 2009 FAHP Conventional Cut and Fill

Jamshidi Mohsen 2009 AHP Conventional Cut and Fill
M. Ataei 2013 TOPSIS Conventional Cut and Fill
Reza Mikaeil 2009 FAHP & TOPSIS Conventional Cut and Fill
Ataei Mohammad 2013 Monte Carlo AHP Conventional Cut and Fill
Current study 2016 WPM and PROMETHEE Conventional Cut and Fill

Discussion
In the current study, to select suitable mining method for
bauxite mine, multi-attribute decision making techniques
are used. Two decision making techniques WPM and
PROMETHEE are used. In this work, at the beginning the
decision matrix of the experts presented by Reza Mikaeil
et al. was used [16] based on the decision matrix, the
calculations corresponding to each method were imple-
mented for the selection of mining method. The results of
the WPM method showed that Conventional Cut and Fill is
the optimum one with the value of 0.973, followed by
Mechanized Cut and Fill and Shrinkage Stoping methods
with 0.839 and 0.628 values, respectively. The last option
is Bench Mining with 0.407 value. The results of the
PROMETHEE method showed that Conventional Cut and
Fill is the optimum one with the value of 2.545, followed
by Mechanized Cut and Fill and Shrinkage Stoping meth-
ods with 1.852 and 0.456 values, respectively. The last
option is Bench Mining with -2.688 value based on the

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
results of WPM and PROMETHEE techniques, in both the
techniques, Conventional Cut and Fill was selected as the
appropriate mining method for a bauxite mine. Based on
Table 12, the results of this research work confirm the
results obtained by earlier researchers for the bauxite mine.
Conclusion
Selecting an appropriate mining method for ore body is a
challenging task for the mining engineers. If a proper
method is not selected for extraction of the minerals, the
result may impact on the economic loss. In this study, to
extract the minerals from the ore body, two multi-attribute
decision making techniques WPM and PROMETHEE were
selected for a bauxite mine, which proved that the optimum
mining method for the mine is suggested by these tech-
niques and earlier research works are same. Using the
proposed techniques, the optimum mining method selected
is conventional cut and fill and bench mining is the worst
mining method.
References
1. A. Azadeh, M. Osanloo, M. Ataei, A new approach to mining
method selection based on modifying the Nicholas technique.
Appl. Soft Comput. 10(4), 1040–1061 (2010)
2. S. Alpay, M. Yavuz, A decision support system for underground
mining method selection. International conference on industrial,
engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007
3. M.Z. Naghadehi, R. Mikaeil, M. Ataei, The application of fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of
optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine,
Iran. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(4), 8218–8226 (2009)
View publication stats
4. F. Samimi Namin et al., A new model for mining method
selection of mineral deposit based on fuzzy decision making.
J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 108(7), 385–395 (2008)
5. M. Yavuz, The application of the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) and Yager’s method in underground mining method
selection problem. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 29(6), 453–475
(2015)
6. S. Shariati, Y.-C. Abdolreza, P.B. Behrang, Mining method
selection by using an integrated model. Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic
Sci. 6(2), 199–214 (2013)
7. M. Jamshidi et al., The application of AHP approach to selection
of optimum underground mining method, case study: Jajarm
Bauxite Mine (Iran). Arch. Min. Sci. 54(1), 103–117 (2009)
8. D. Bogdanovic, D. Nikolic, I. Ilic, Mining method selection by
integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method. Anais da Academia
Brasileira de Ciencias 84(1), 219–233 (2012)
9. J.I. Romero Gelvez, F.A. Cortes Aldana, Mining method selec-
tion methodology by multiple criteria decision analysis-case
study in Colombian coal mining. Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process
3, 1–11 (2014)
10. H. Karimnia, H. Bagloo, Optimum mining method selection
using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process–Qapiliq salt mine, Iran.
Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 25(2), 225–230 (2015)
11. W. Lv, Z. Zhang, Establishment and application of thin coal seam
mining method prediction model based on improved neural net-
work. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat. 36(2), 1–11 (2015)
12. W. Chen, S. Tu, Selection of an appropriate mechanized mining
technical process for thin coal seam mining, Math. Probl. Eng.
2015, 893232–1–893232–10 (2015)
13. R. Venkata Rao, Decision making in the manufacturing envi-
ronment: using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making methods (Springer, Berlin, 2007)
14. J.-P. Brans, P. Vincke, B. Mareschal, How to select and how to
rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
24(2), 228–238 (1986)
15. R. V. Rao, Multiple attribute decision making in the manufac-
turing environment, in Decision Making in Manufacturing
Environment Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute
Decision Making Methods (Springer, London, 2013), p. 1–5
16. R. Mikaeil et al., A decision support system using fuzzy analyt-
ical hierarchy process (FAHP) and TOPSIS approaches for
selection of the optimum underground mining method. Arch.
Min. Sci. 54(2), 349–368 (2009)
123