Skip to main content

Advertisement

Selection of mine development scheme based on similarity measure under fuzzy environment

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

Abstract

Mine development scheme selection is an important project in mine construction, as the benefit of a mine is directly affected by the quality of the scheme. In this paper, we consider the selection problem of mine development scheme under fuzzy environment. Firstly, linguistic neutrosophic numbers (LNNs) are chosen to fully describe people’s linguistic evaluation information. To advance the following study, a new similarity measure of LNNs based on consistency degree is defined, and some important properties are also proved. Then, a new method based on similarity measure is proposed to cope with linguistic neutrosophic decision-making issues. It contains two weight determination models. One model takes the advantages of majority rule to calculate the experts’ weights objectively. Another model uses the idea of the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution to obtain the weights of criteria. Lastly, when the evaluation index system of mine development scheme selection is constructed, the feasibility and strengths of our approach are indicated through an illustration and some related comparisons.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Connolly E, Orsmond D (2011) The mining industry: from bust to boom. Research Discussion Paper, No 2011-08, Reserve Bank of Australia

  2. Ali SH, Giurco D, Arndt N, Nickless E, Brown G, Demetriades A, Durrheim R, Enriquez MA, Kinnaird J, Littleboy A, Meinert LD, Oberhänsli R, Salem J, Schodde R, Schneider G, Vidal O, Yakovleva N (2017) Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543(7645):367–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brady BH, Brown ET (2006) Rock mechanics for underground mining. Springer science & business media, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rao XM, Chen JH, Zheng HL, Yang RB (2011) Applying fuzzy mathematical method to optimize deep-well development scheme. Min Res Dev 31(1):6–8

    Google Scholar 

  5. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Set syst 115(1):67–82

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Ma YX, Wang JQ, Wang J, Wu XH (2017) An interval neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making method and its application in selecting medical treatment options. Neural Comput Appl 28(9):2745–2765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Xu ZS (2005) Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33(3):249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang JQ, Wu JT, Wang J, Zhang HY, Chen XH (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on the Hausdorff distance of hesitant fuzzy linguistic numbers. Soft Comput 20(4):1621–1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Luo SZ, Zhang HY, Wang JQ, Li L (2018) Group decision-making approach for evaluating the sustainability of constructed wetlands with probabilistic linguistic preference relations. J Oper Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1510806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu PD, Chen SM (2018) Multiattribute group decision making based on intuitionistic 2-tuple linguistic information. Inform Sci 430:599–619

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang H, Xu ZS, Zeng XJ (2018) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for linguistic decision making: current developments, issues and challenges. Inform Fusion. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen ZC, Liu PH, Pei Z (2015) An approach to multiple attribute group decision making based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Int J Comput Int Syst 8(4):747–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu PD, Liu JL, Merigó JM (2018) Partitioned Heronian means based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for dealing with multi-attribute group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 62:395–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fang ZB, Ye J (2017) Multiple attribute group decision-making method based on linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9070111

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1994) Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. Eur J Oper Res 79(2):249–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jabeur K, Martel JM (2007) An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 180:1272–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yue ZL (2011) An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers. Knowl Based Syst 24(1):146–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook WD, Golany B, Penn M, Raviv T (2007) Creating a consensus ranking of proposals from reviewers’ partial ordinal rankings. Comput Oper Res 34:954–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yue ZL (2012) Extension of TOPSIS to determine weight of decision maker for group decision making problems with uncertain information. Expert Syst Appl 39(7):6343–6350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang BL, Liang JY, Qian YH (2015) Determining decision makers’ weights in group ranking: a granular computing method. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 6(3):511–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Qin QD, Liang F, Li L, Chen YW, Yu GF (2017) A TODIM-based multi-criteria group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Appl Soft Comput 55:93–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abootalebi S, Hadi-Vencheh A, Jamshidi A (2018) An improvement to determining expert weights in group multiple attribute decision making problem. Group Decis Negot 27(2):215–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu J, Dai LF, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust. Inform Fusion 41:232–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheng SH (2018) Autocratic multiattribute group decision making for hotel location selection based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Inform Sci 427:77–87

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Wu H, Dai B (2019) Risk assessment of rockburst via an extended MABAC method under fuzzy environment. Tunn Undergrad Space Technol 83:533–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang L, Xu Y, Yeh CH, Liu Y, Zhou DQ (2016) City sustainability evaluation using multi-criteria decision making with objective weights of interdependent criteria. J Clean Prod 131:491–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Farhadinia B (2016) Multiple criteria decision-making methods with completely unknown weights in hesitant fuzzy linguistic term setting. Knowl Based Syst 93:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Wu H, Chen Y (2018) Assessing the risk degree of goafs by employing hybrid TODIM method under uncertainty. Bull Eng Geol Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1340-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wan SP, Qin YL, Dong JY (2017) A hesitant fuzzy mathematical programming method for hybrid multi-criteria group decision making with hesitant fuzzy truth degrees. Knowl Based Syst 138:232–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gitinavard H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B (2017) Soft computing based on hierarchical evaluation approach and criteria interdependencies for energy decision-making problems: a case study. Energy 118:556–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhong L, Yao LM (2017) An ELECTRE I-based multi-criteria group decision making method with interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and its application to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 57:556–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhao HR, Zhao HR, Guo S (2017) Evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks by employing multi-criteria decision making approach for circular economy. J Clean Prod 142:2262–2276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195:106–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Efe B, Kurt M (2018) A systematic approach for an application of personnel selection in assembly line balancing problem. Int Trans Oper Res 25(3):1001–1025

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu YD, Zhang K, Liu B (2014) Application of fuzzy optimization theory in the selection of mine development scheme. Mod Min 1:2–3. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-6082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Deng HW, Luo LM, Zhang J (2015) Optimization of mine development scheme based on empowerment combination TOPSIS. In: 4th international conference on computer, mechatronics, control and electronic engineering, Shenyang, pp 1286–1292. https://doi.org/10.2991/iccmcee-15.2015.241

  38. Li HL (2017) Development system optimization based on AHP-entropy weight method and grey correlation analysis. Metal Mine. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shi LL, Ye J (2017) Cosine measures of linguistic neutrosophic numbers and their application in multiple attribute group decision-making. Information. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fan CX, Ye J, Hu KL, Fan E (2017) Bonferroni mean operators of linguistic neutrosophic numbers and their multiple attribute group decision-making methods. Information. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8030107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Wu H (2017) Evaluating investment risks of metallic mines using an extended TOPSIS method with linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9080149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liang WZ, Zhao GY, Hong CS (2018) Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Comput Appl 1:2–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3405-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC0604606), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (51774321). Besides, we also sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive suggestions and the editors for their careful and patient work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SL and WL conceived and worked together to achieve this work, SL wrote the paper, and WL made contribution to the case study. LX made contribution to modifying the quality and English writing of this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei-zhang Liang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, Sz., Liang, Wz. & Xing, Ln. Selection of mine development scheme based on similarity measure under fuzzy environment. Neural Comput & Applic 32, 5255–5266 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04026-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04026-x

Keywords