International Conference on Civil Engineering

Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development

18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Identification of Effective Factors on Mineral

Processing Plant Site Selection and Ranking them
by AHP Method
Naer Rahmani*, Hojjat Ranjbar, Abbas Sam, Ali Taghinejad

1. M.Sc. Student of Mining Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman - Iran,

naer.rahmani@yahoo.com
2. Professor of Applied Remote Sensing, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman - Iran, h.ranjbar@uk.ac.ir
3. Assistant Professor of Mineral Processing, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman - Iran, sam@uk.ac.ir
4. M.Sc. in Geology, Member of N.I.C.I.Co. - Iran, taghinejad@nicico.com

Abstract
Selection of a mineral processing plant location, near a mine is one of the most important
parameters that directly affect the mining process. If this stage executed properly, experts
can expect that efficiency will increase and on the other hand costs and destructive effects
on the environment will decrease, because of such a successful decision. Factors that
effect on Plant location include economical, traditional, technological, technical and etc.
In this paper many efforts was done to identify the effective factors and classify them in
suitable categories. Factors were identified by library studies and some current problems,
caused by unsuitable location, in a number of mineral processing plants. After this stage,
expert's opinions were collected by using questionnaires in pair-wise comparisons. At the
end, by using AHP Method and combining 5 expert's opinions in different fields (Mining
exploration, Mining excavation, Rock mechanics, Mineral processing, and Mining
management), affecting factors were ranked.

Key words: Mineral Processing Plant Location; Site Selection; Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

1. Introduction
Mineral processing plant site selection, depends on many parameters, therefore it can be
considered as a multi-criteria decision making problem. This problem consists of four levels,
ranking of effective criteria, zoning of land area (from unsuitable to very suitable), providing
several places with highest rankings and selecting one of them. In the past decades many
methods were presented for solving the multi-criteria problems (such as AHP, ANP,
ELECTRE, WSM, VIKOR and etc.). Among these methods, the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy
Process) method is the most widely used, powerful and simplest method. Only one report has
been presented about using this method (AHP) in criteria ranking of mineral processing plant
site selection [1]. In that research 10 sub-criteria in five classes were presented. We tried to
expand the criteria (33 sub-criteria in 7 classes) to cover all aspects of the problem and
guarantee the site selection success. It should be noted that necessarily all of the provided
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

criteria will not be used in any project and only some of them will used depends on their
involvement in problem. MCDM methods also can be used for other purposes such as tailing
dam site selection.
Fig.1 shows the affecting criteria on mineral processing site selection.

2. Definition of Factors
By a review on common needs of a mineral processing plant, it can be expected to identify the
effective factors on mineral processing site selection. These factors (criteria) are touchstones
for measuring the decision success. Whatever the criteria will be more comprehensive, better
results will be achieved [2]. In the following section, effective factors will present.
1-2- Trade and commercial factors
Mining consist of three important levels; Exploration, Excavation and Mineral processing. In
the last link of this chain, the favorable minerals will be prepared for industrial uses. It is clear
that a mineral processing unit as supplying other industrial needs must be able to compete
with other competitors. This competition includes quality, quantity and cost of the product.
Quality and quantity of products are dependable on the technical and technological factors of
unit, whereas the product cost is extremely dependable on distance from mine to plant and
from plant to factory.
2-2- Technical and technological factors
According to the type of processing minerals and their genesis, every mineral processing
plant, uses different flow-sheet to obtain better results. These differences in methods and
flow-sheets may cause differences in equipments and minimum required space for plant.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Moreover due to this change in equipments, it is expected that tailings and wastes be very
diverse due to their physical and chemical properties. These materials are very harmful to
natural environment and preparing a suitable site for damping them is one of the most
important affairs in mining.
3-2- Environmental, geographical, social and cultural factors
Acid mine drainages (AMD), eliminating vegetation areas and degradation of ecosystem are
unwanted gifts of mining. Paying attention to environmental issues (such as distance from
water wells, Qantas, rivers, vegetation and etc.) are very important for a mineral processing
plant. Other notable factors are prevailing winds conditions (Max. speed and direction),
underground water tables and distance from cultural heritages. Forecasting the trend of cities
growth direction may be very useful for mineral processing site selection.
4-2- Geological factors
Subsidence, landslide and geotechnical factors directly effect on selected site for mineral
processing plant. Keeping distance from faults (active and non-active) and considering the
seismicity condition and bedrock strength are other notable subjects.
5-2- Legal factors
Every construction must consider legal factors and legislations. Implementation of these laws
is mandatory.
6-2- Facilities and infrastructure factors
Existence of these cases is very useful for better growth rate of constructions.
7-2- Mining factors
Constructing mineral processing plants, due to financial parameters, must be near to mine.
Presence of this plant in such a mineralized place may cause this building, place on a mine
reservoir and this situation is the worst case that can occur. Due to this problem, mapping
related altered zones and using detailed exploration studies may help experts to select the best
site for mineral processing plant construction place.
3. ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS METHOD
Saaty developed AHP, which decomposes a decision-making problem into a system of
hierarchies of objectives, criteria ad alternatives [3]. The AHP method involves six essential
steps: Defining the problem, Developing hierarchy, Pair-wise comparisons, estimating the
relative weights, checking the consistency, and finally obtaining the overall ratings [4]. In the
following AHP methodology will be explained.
1-3- Defining the problem
The most basic step in a decision making problem for plant site selection is definition and
recognition of the plant needs. Particularly for a mineral processing plant, it must be noted
that which mineral will be dressed in this plant and which methods will be used for dressing
process. On the other hand different dressing methods will need different equipment and
required area.
2-3- Developing the problem hierarchy
In next step, after an accurate evaluation, appropriate classes will be formed and in each class,
many relevant criteria will stand.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

3-3- Pair-wise comparisons

For a group decision making, that guarantee the success of decision, we must collect the
opinion of all decision makers. In a pair-wise comparison, two criteria will be comprised and
by a special scale, numbers will be assigned to them. All criteria must be compared with the
others. Data will be collected in a square matrix (n  n matrix). All of arrays on the main
diagonal of pair-wise matrix are 1 and other arrays are inverse respect to the main diagonal.
The comparison scale for pair-wise matrix is presented in table1. We name the decision
matrix as A.

Preferences expressed Preferences expressed in

in numeric variable linguistic variable
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance
Intermediate values between
2, 4, 6, 8
adjacent scale values.
4-3- Estimating the relative weights
After providing the pair-wise comparison matrix it's time to calculate the relative weights.
Many different methods were offered (such as least square, logarithmic least square,
eigenvector and approximation methods). The eigenvector method is the most commonly
used and important method. The relative weights (W) of matrix A are obtained from eq.1,
according to eigenvector method:
A W   W (1)

The above equation can be written as below (eq.2):

 A   maxI  W 0 (2)

5-3- Checking the consistency

Sometimes the judgments of decision makers are inconsistent and it makes the results become
incorrect. To avoid this problem the inconsistency index must be calculated according to the
following equation (eq.3):
 max  n
I .I  (3)
n 1

The inconsistency index of a randomly generated reciprocal matrix shall be called the random
inconsistency index (R.I.I) with reciprocal forced. The random inconsistency index can be
calculated using the following equation (eq. 4):
n 2
R .I .I  1.86 (4)
n

In some studies, the above formula was reported as below (eq.5) [5]:
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

n 2
R .I .I  1.98 (5)
n

The first formula is more accurate and closer to the real values. Table 2 shows the random
inconsistency index for matrices of the order from 1 to 15.

No. of Criteria R.I.I.

1 0.00
2 0.00
3 0.52
4 0.89
5 1.11
6 1.25
7 1.35
8 1.40
9 1.45
10 1.49
11 1.52
12 1.54
13 1.56
14 1.58
15 1.59
In next step the inconsistency ratio (I.R) will be calculated (eq.6):
I .I
I .R  (6)
R .I .I

Inconsistency ratio is used to determine the inconsistency. Whatever the calculated I.R. value
is greater the inconsistency is greater. Maximum acceptable value for a consistence decision
is 0.1.
6-3- Obtaining the overall rating
For obtaining the overall ratings for alternatives, relative weights of the decision elements be
aggregated as follow (eq.7):
m
W is  W
j 1
s a
ij W j (i  1, 2,..., m ) (7)

s
Ws
Where W i is the total weight of alternative i; ij the weight of alternative i associated to
Wa
attribute j; j the weight of attribute j; m the number of attributes and n the number of
alternatives.
All of the mentioned steps are executable in Expert Choice software. This software is not the
only choice but it is widely used and more acceptable than others.
4. AHP ANALYSIS ON EXPERT'S PAIR-WISE COMPARISONS
After collecting the expert's opinions by checking out the distributed questionnaires,
judgments were imported into the Expert Choice 11 software with equal weights for each
expert. Using "participants table" menu, the combined result was produced and the affecting
factors were ranked relatively. In the following diagram, final result is presented.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Detailed results are according to the following table:

Criteria Weight Rank
Distance to Feed Supplier Stations 0.08601 1
Distance to Wtercourses 0.06236 2
Distance to villages 0.0599 3
Access to Appropriate Site For Waste Accumulation 0.05828 4
Topographic Conditions 0.05809 5
Regional Water Table Conditions 0.05559 6
Probable Trend of Mineralization 0.05543 7
Subsidence and Landslide Conditions 0.05198 8
Distance to Faults 0.05089 9
Distance to Cultural Heritages and Tourism Areas 0.04077 10
Prevailing Winds Conditions 0.03851 11
BedRock Strength 0.03714 12
Seismicity Conditions 0.03641 13
Distance to Protected WildLife Areas 0.03136 14
Distance to Vegetation 0.02819 15
Water Supply 0.0269 16
Condition of Land Ownership 0.02301 17
Distance to Main Roads 0.02283 18
Electricity Supply 0.0217 19
Distance to Tribe Camps 0.02097 20
Distance to Abonded Mines and Probable Reservoirs 0.02051 21
Fuel Supply 0.01464 22
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Distance to Rivers 0.01427 23

Distance to Train Rails 0.0139 24
Distance to Consumer Market 0.01247 25
Distance to Qanats 0.01232 26
Access to Minimum Requierd Area 0.00986 27
Distance to Springs 0.00851 28
Distance to Hunted Villages 0.00717 29
Distance to Wells 0.00704 30
Communication Needs Supply 0.00527 31
Distance to Medical Stations 0.00398 32
Distance to Airports 0.00374 33

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like thank to 4 reviewers (Mohammad Abbasi, Asghar Babazadeh, Obaid
Farshid and Rahmat Zaheri) for their helpful comments and Engineer Mohammad-Reza
Yarahmadi for his helps and so thank to National Iranian Copper Industries Company for
financially supporting this research.
6. References
[1] Safari, M., Ataei, M., Khalokakaie, R., & KARAMOZIAN, M. (2010). Mineral processing
plant location using the analytic hierarchy process—a case study: the Sangan iron ore mine
(phase 1). Mining Science and Technology (China), 20(5), 691-695.

[2] Ataei, M. (2010). Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Shahrood University of Technology

Press.

[3] Kahraman, C. (Ed.). (2008). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: theory and applications
with recent developments (Vol. 16). Springer.

[4] Lee, A. H., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for
evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert
Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96-107.

[5] Marinoni, O. (2004). Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in
ArcGIS. Computers & Geosciences, 30(6), 637-646.