Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Haulage system selection for open pit mines using fuzzy MCDM and the view on energy saving

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Haulage costs in mining operation are significantly raised with the increase in the diesel prices. Therefore, the movable plans, such as the mobile and semi-mobile haulage system, are the alternatives to replace trucks and reduce haulage costs. Regarding the various criteria used in the selection of the suitable haulage alternatives, a multi-criteria decision-making problem can be considered. In most cases, computing the linguistic variables is not clear for the decision makers. These uncertainties have been interpreted in the decision process, and it is the advantage of the fuzzy set theory. This study focused to propose the best haulage system among fixed crusher and trucks, semi-mobile crusher and mobile crusher plant against 10 criteria in a case study: Kahnuj titanium mine in Iran. To achieve this aim, the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Model (DEMATEL) together with the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) with fuzzy set theory is used. Also, the haulage systems were classified based on their energy consumption. The results showed that the semi-mobile in-pit crushing system could be the most suitable haulage system for the studied mine. In this plan, 20,478.351 MMBTU energy was saved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hustrulid W, Kuchta M, Martin R (1995) Open pit mine planning & design, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mular AL, Poulin R (1998) A handbook for estimating mining and mineral processing equipment costs and capital expenditures and aiding mineral project evaluation, vol 47. Canadian institute of mining, metallurgy and petroleum, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bagherpour R (2007) Technical and economical optimization of surface mining processes: Development of a data base and a program structure for the computer-based selection and dimensioning of equipment in surface mining operations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Technischen Universität Clausthal

  4. Shen L, Muduli K, Barve A (2015) Developing a sustainable development framework in the context of mining industries: AHP approach. Resour Pol 46:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri BC (2016) TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comput Appl 27(3):727–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dymova L, Sevastjanov P, Tikhonenko A (2013) An approach to generalization of fuzzy TOPSIS method. Inf Sci 238:149–162

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Kannan D, Jabbour ABLDS, Jabbour CJC (2014) Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):432–447

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Pires A, Chang NB, Martinho G (2011) An AHP-based fuzzy interval TOPSIS assessment for sustainable expansion of the solid waste management system in Setu´bal Peninsula, Portugal. Resour Conserv Recycl 56(1):7–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rostamzadeh R, Sofian S (2011) Prioritizing effective 7Ms to improve production systems performance using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS (case study). Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5166–5177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang X, Chan HK (2013) A hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS approach to assess improvement areas when implementing green supply chain initiatives. Int J Prod Res 51(10):3117–3130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bazzazi AA, Osanloo M, Karimi B (2009) Optimal open pit mining equipment selection using fuzzy multiple attribute decision making approach. Arch Min Sci 54(2):301–320

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kun M, Topaloğlu Ş, Malli T (2013) Evaluation of wheel loaders in open pit marble quarrying by using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches/Ocena pracy ładowarki na podwoziu kołowym w odkrywkowej kopalni marmuru w oparciu o metody AHP i topsis. Arch Min Sci 58(1):255–267

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chamzini-Y A, Shariati S (2013) Selection of material handling equipment system for surface mines by using a combination of fuzzy MCDM models. Int Res J Appl Basic Sci 5(12):1501–1511

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen HT, Dawal SZ, Nukman Y, Rifai AP, Aoyama H (2016) An integrated MCDM model for conveyor equipment evaluation and selection in an FMC based on a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ARAS in the presence of vagueness. PLoS ONE 11(4):e0153222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yavuz M (2015) Equipment selection based on the AHP and Yager’s method. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 115(5):425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sangaiah AK, Subramaniam PR, Zheng X (2015) A combined fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS approach for evaluating GSD project outcome factors. Neural Comput Appl 26(5):1025–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sangaiah AK, Thangavelu AK (2013) An exploration of FMCDM approach for evaluating the outcome/success of GSD projects. Central Eur J Eng 3(3):419–435

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sangaiah AK, Gopal J, Basu A, Subramaniam PR (2015) An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/s00521-015-2040-7

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Deng H (1999) Multi criteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparison. Int J Approx Reason 21(3):215–231

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Gopal J, Sangaiah AK, Basu A, Gao XZ (2015) Integration of fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet. doi:10.1007/s13042-015-0370-5

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rahimdel MJ, Karamoozian M (2014) Fuzzy TOPSIS method to primary crusher selection for Golegohar Iron Mine (Iran). J Central South Univ 21(11):4352–4359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bagherpour R (2008) Feasibility study of Kahnuj titanium ore deposit exploitation (in Persian)

  24. Boyd K, Utley RW (2002) In-pit crushing design and layout consideration. In: Mineral processing plant design, practice, and control, Published by the SME: 1

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mining Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, 5331711111, Iran

    Mohammad Javad Rahimdel

  2. Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 8415683111, Iran

    Raheb Bagherpour

Authors
  1. Mohammad Javad Rahimdel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raheb Bagherpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Javad Rahimdel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahimdel, M.J., Bagherpour, R. Haulage system selection for open pit mines using fuzzy MCDM and the view on energy saving. Neural Comput & Applic 29, 187–199 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2562-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2562-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation