Систематизация атрибутов многокритериальных моделей в горной отрасли на основе литературного обзора исследований

Константин Владимирович Бурмистров; Никита Анатольевич Осинцев

doi:10.18503/SMTS-2024-14-1-25-57

Авторы

Константин Владимирович Бурмистров Магнитогорский государственный технический университет Автор https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3433-133X
Никита Анатольевич Осинцев Магнитогорский государственный технический университет Автор

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18503/SMTS-2024-14-1-25-57

Ключевые слова:

многокритериальный анализ, многокритериальные методы принятия решений, литературный обзор, горная отрасль, открытые горные работы, подземный способ разработки, систематизация, горное оборудование, горнотехническая система, система вскрытия, система разработки, атрибут, критерий

Аннотация

Актуальность исследования обусловлена сложностью принятия оперативных и стратегических управленческих решений на горнодобывающих предприятиях. Сложность обусловлена наличием множества противоречивых целей и задач, большим количеством факторов, оказывающих влияние на функционирование предприятия, разнообразием критериев оценки вариантов решений. Для принятия решения в таких условиях всё чаще используются методы многокритериального анализа, популярность которых значительно возросла в последние десятилетия. Однако в русскоязычной научной литературе отсутствуют систематические литературные обзоры использования методов многокритериального анализа в горной отрасли. Целью исследования является определение перспектив применения многокритериальных моделей и методов принятия решений – Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) в горнодобывающей отрасли на основе обзора современной научной литературы. Выполнен анализ 123 исследовательских и 8 обзорных научных статей, посвящённых использованию многокритериальных методов принятия решений в горной отрасли. Выявлены недостатки существующих обзоров, установлены особенности применения MCDM. Предложена универсальная система параметров (атрибутов в терминах MCDM) многокритериальных моделей в горном деле, которая включает 31 атрибут, сгруппированных в восемь кластеров. Особенностью предлагаемой системы является возможность выполнения комплексного анализа горнодобывающего предприятия и его подсистем (горнотехнической системы, системы вскрытия, системы разработки, системы управления) с учётом особенностей реализации различных многокритериальных методов и моделей. Такое решение позволяет повысить качество выполнения многокритериального анализа и, как следствие, обоснованность принимаемых управленческих решений, учитывающих сложные взаимосвязи технологических процессов, параметров вскрытия, систем разработки. Результаты исследований могут быть использованы специалистами горнодобывающих предприятий, проектных и научно-исследовательских организаций для принятия решений с использованием многокритериальных методов и моделей.

Скачивания

Данные по скачиваниям пока не доступны.

Библиографические ссылки

1. Rakhmangulov A., Burmistrov K., Osintsev N. Selection of open-pit mining and technical system’s sustainable development strategies based on MCDM // Sustainability. 2022. Vol. 14. No. 13. pp. 8003. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su14138003.

2. Velikanov V. S., Dyorina N. V., Korotkova A. N., Dyorina K. S. The challenges of Industry 4.0 and the need for new answers in the mining industry // News of the Ural State Mining University. 2021. No. 2. pp. 154-166. https://www.doi.org/10.21440/2307-2091-2021-2-154-166.

3. Anysz H., Nicał A., Stević Ž., Grzegorzewski M., Sikora K. Pareto optimal decisions in multi-criteria decision making explained with construction cost cases // Symmetry. 2021. Vol. 13. No 1. pp. 46. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/sym13010046.

4. Rakhmangulov A., Burmistrov К., Osintsev N. Sustainable open pit mining and technical systems: Concept, principles, and indicators // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 1101. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su13031101.

5. Stojčić M., Zavadskas E., Pamučar D., Stević Ž., Mardani A. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018 // Symmetry. 2019. Vol. 11. No. 3. pp. 350. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350.

6. Adem Esmail B., Geneletti D. Multi‐criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A review of 20 years of applications // Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2018. Vol. 9. No. 1. pp. 42-53. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12899.

7. Baloyi V.D., Meyer L. D. The development of a mining method selection model through a detailed assessment of multi-criteria decision methods // Results in Engineering. 2020. No. 8. pp. 100172. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.100172.

8. Sitorus F., Cilliers J. J., Brito-Parada P. R. Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends // Expert Systems with Applications. 2019. Vol. 121. pp. 393-417. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001.

9. Namin F. S., Ghadi A., Saki F. A literature review of Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) towards mining method selection (MMS) // Resources Policy. 2022. Vol. 77. pp. 102676. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102676.

10. Zeng L., Liu S. Q., Kozan E., Corry P., Masoud M. A comprehensive interdisciplinary review of mine supply chain management // Resources Policy. 2021. Т. 74. С. 102274. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102274.

11. Burt C. N., Caccetta L. Equipment selection for surface mining: A review // Interfaces. 2014. Vol. 44. No. 2. pp. 143-162. https://www.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2013.0732.

12. Franco-Sepúlveda G., Del Rio-Cuervo J. C., Pachón-Hernández M. A. State of the art about metaheuristics and artificial neural networks applied to open pit mining // Resources Policy. 2019. Vol. 60. pp. 125-133. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.12.013.

13. Leal Gomes Leite J. M., Arruda E. F., Bahiense L., Marujo L. G. Modeling the integrated mine-to-client supply chain: a survey // International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment. 2020. Vol. 34. No. 4. pp. 247-293. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2019.1579693.

14. Verma S., Chaudhari S. Highlights from the literature on risk assessment techniques adopted in the mining industry: A review of past contributions, recent developments and future scope // International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 2016. Vol. 26. No. 4. pp. 691-702. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2016.05.023.

15. Каплунов Д., Рыльникова М. Принципы проектирования горнотехнических систем комплексного освоения рудных месторождений комбинированной геотехнологией // Физико-технические проблемы разработки полезных ископаемых // Физико-технические проблемы разработки полезных ископаемых. 2008. Т. 6. С. 58-66.

16. Яковлев В., Яковлев В. Формирование транспортных систем карьеров с учётом адаптации к изменяющимся условиям разработки глубокозалегающих сложноструктурных месторождений // Известия высших учебных заведений. Горный журнал. 2018. № 6. С. 118-126. https://www.doi.org/10.21440/0536-1028-2018-6-118-126.

17. Бурмистров К., Осинцев Н. Принципы устойчивого развития горнотехнических систем в переходные периоды // Известия Томского политехнического университета. Инжиниринг георесурсов. 2020. Т. 331. № 4. С. 179-195. https://www.doi.org/10.18799/24131830/2020/4/2606.

18. Bascetin A. A decision support system for optimal equipment selection in open pit mining: Analytical hierarchy process // Journal of Earth Sciences. 2003. Vol. 16. No. 2. pp. 1-11.

19. Komljenovic D., Kecojevic V. Multi-attribute selection method for mining trucks // Society for Mining, Metal-lurgy & Exploration. 2006. Vol. 320. pp. 94-104.

20. Acaroglu O., Ergin H., Eskikaya S. Analytical hierarchy process for selection of roadheaders // The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 2006. Vol. 106. pp. 569-575.

21. Bascetin A. A decision support system using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for the optimal environmental reclamation of an open-pit mine // Environmental Geology. 2007. Vol. 52. No. 4. pp. 663-672. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0495-7.

22. Soltanmohammadi H., Aghajani Bazzazi A., Osanloo M. Loading-haulage equipment selection in open pit mines based on fuzzy-TOPSIS method // Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi. 2008. Vol. 24. pp. 87-102.

23. Dey P. K., Ramcharan E. K. Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados // Journal of environmental management. 2008. Vol. 88. No. 4. pp. 1384-1395. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.07.011.

24. Yavuz M., Alpay S. Underground mining technique selection by multicriterion optimization methods // Journal of Mining Sciences. 2008. No. 4. pp. 391-401. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10913-008-0043-9.

25. Bascetin A. The study of decision making tools for equipment selection in mining engineering operations // Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi-Mineral Resources Management. 2009. Vol. 25. No. 3. pp. 37-56.

26. Bazzazi A. A., Osanloo M., Karimi B. Optimal open pit mining equipment selection using fuzzy multiple attribute decision making approach // Archives of Mining Sciences. 2009. Vol. 54. No. 2. pp. 301-320.

27. Bazzazi A. A., Osanloo M., Karimi B. A new fuzzy multi criteria decision making model for open pit mines equipment selection // Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research. 2011. Vol. 28. No. 03. pp. 279-300. https://www.doi.org/10.1142/S0217595911003247.

28. Choi Y., Park H.-D., Sunwoo C., Clarke K. C. Multi‐criteria evaluation and least‐cost path analysis for optimal haulage routing of dump trucks in large scale open‐pit mines // International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2009. Vol. 23. No. 12. pp. 1541-1567. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/13658810802385245.

29. Safari M., Ataei M., Khalokakaie R., Karamozian M. Mineral processing plant location using the analytic hierarchy process - a case study: The Sangan iron ore mine (phase 1) // Mining Science and Technology (China). 2010. Vol. 20. No. 5. pp. 691-695. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60264-7.

30. Tuzkaya G., Gülsün B., Kahraman C., Özgen D. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application // Expert Systems with Applications. 2010. Vol. 37. No. 4. pp. 2853-2863. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.09.004.

31. Owusu-Mensah F., Musingwini C. Evaluation of ore transport options from Kwesi Mensah Shaft to the mill at the Obuasi mine // International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment. 2011. Vol. 25. No. 2. pp. 109-125. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2010.538988.

32. Aghajani Bazzazi A., Osanloo M., Karimi B. Deriving preference order of open pit mines equipment through MADM methods: Application of modified VIKOR method // Expert Systems with Applications. 2011. Vol. 38. No. 3. pp. 2550-2556. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.043.

33. Azimi R., Yazdani-Chamzini A., Fouladgar M. M., Zavadskas E. K., Basiri M. H. Ranking the strategies of mining sector through ANP and TOPSIS in a SWOT framework // Journal of Business Economics and Manage-ment. 2011. Vol. 12. No. 4. pp. 670-689. https://www.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.626552.

34. Fouladgar M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini A., Yakhchali H. S. A new methodology for prioritizing mining strategies // International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology. 2011. Vol. 2. No. 4. pp. 342-347.

35. Zoran D., Saša M., Dragi P. Application of the AHP method for selection of a transportation system in mine planning // Podzemni radovi. 2011. No. 19. pp. 93-99.

36. Fouladgar M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini A., Zavadskas E. K. An integrated model for prioritizing strategies of the Iranian mining sector // Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2011. Vol. 17. No. 3. pp. 459-483. https://www.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.603173.

37. Badri A., Nadeau S., Gbodossou A. Integration of OHS into risk management in an open-pit mining project in Quebec (Canada) // Minerals. 2011. Vol. 1. No. 1. С. 3-29. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/min1010003.

38. Lashgari A., Yazdani–Chamzini A., Fouladgar M. M., Zavadskas E. K., Shafiee S., Abbate N. Equipment selection using fuzzy multi criteria decision making model: Key study of Gole Gohar Iron Min // Engineering Economics. 2012. Vol. 23. No. 2. pp. 125-136. https://www.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.23.2.1544.

39. Shahin A., Shirouyehzad H., Pourjavad E. Optimum maintenance strategy: A case study in the mining industry // International Journal of Services and Operations Management. 2012. Vol. 12. No. 3. pp. 368-386. https://www.doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2012.047626.

40. Abedi M., Torabi S. A., Norouzi G.-H., Hamzeh M. ELECTRE III: A knowledge-driven method for integration of geophysical data with geological and geochemical data in mineral prospectivity mapping // Journal of Applied Geophysics. 2012. Vol. 87. pp. 9-18. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012.08.003.

41. Abedi M., Ali Torabi S., Norouzi G.-H., Hamzeh M., Elyasi G.-R. PROMETHEE II: A knowledge-driven method for copper exploration // Computers & Geosciences. 2012. Vol. 46. pp. 255-263. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.12.012.

42. Pazand K., Hezarkhani A., Ataei M. Using TOPSIS approaches for predictive porphyry Cu potential mapping: A case study in Ahar-Arasbaran area (NW, Iran) // Computers & Geosciences. 2012. Vol. 49. pp. 62-71. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.05.024.

43. Fouladgar M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini A., Lashgari A., Zavadskas E. K., Turskis Z. Maintenance strategy selection using AHP and COPRAS under fuzzy environment // International Journal of Strategic Property Manage-ment. 2012. Vol. 16. No. 1. pp. 85-104. https://www.doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2012.666657.

44. Shahin A., Pourjavad E., Shirouyehzad H. Selecting optimum maintenance strategy by analytic network process with a case study in the mining industry // International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management. 2012. Vol. 10. No. 4. pp. 464. https://www.doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2012.049634.

45. Samanta B., Sarkar B., Mukherjee S. K. Selection of opencast mining equipment by a multi-criteria decision-making process // Mining Technology. 2013. Vol. 111. No. 2. pp. 136-142. https://www.doi.org/10.1179/mnt.2002.111.2.136.

46. Adebimpe R. A., Akande J., Arum C. Mine equipment selection for Ajabanoko Iron Ore Deposit, Kogi State, Nigeria // Science Research. 2013. Vol. 1. No. 2. pp. 25-30. https://www.doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20130102.13.

47. Ataei M., Shahsavany H., Mikaeil R. Monte Carlo Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP) approach to selection of optimum mining method // International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 2013. Vol. 23. No. 4. pp. 573-578. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.07.017.

48. Despodov Z., Mirakovski D., Mijalkovski S. Methodology for selection of the most convenient ore transportation system in regard to the environmental protection // The International Journal of Transport and Logistics. 2013. Vol. 13. No. 26. pp. 1/

49. Vujić S., Hudej M., Miljanović I. Results of the PROMETHEE method application in selecting the technological system at the Majdan III open pit mine // Archives of Mining Sciences. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 4. pp. 1229-1240. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/amsc-2013-0084.

50. Pourjavad E., Shirouyehzad H., Shahin A. Selecting maintenance strategy in mining industry by analytic net-work process and TOPSIS // International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering. 2013. Vol. 15. No. 2. pp. 171-192. https://www.doi.org/10.1504/IJISE.2013.056095.

51. Yari M., Monjezi M., Bagherpour R. Selecting the most suitable blasting pattern using AHP-TOPSIS method: Sungun copper mine // Journal of Mining Science. 2013. Vol. 49. No. 6. pp. 967-975. https://www.doi.org/10.1134/S1062739149060178.

52. Kun M., Topaloğlu Ş., Malli T. Evaluation of wheel loaders in open pit marble quarrying by using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches // Archives of Mining Sciences. 2013. Т. 58. № 1. С. 255-267. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/amsc-2013-0018.

53. Ebrahimabadi A., Alavi I. Plant type selection for reclamation of Sarcheshmeh copper mine using fuzzy-TOPSIS approach // Archives of Mining Sciences. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 3. pp. 953-968. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/amsc-2013-0067.

54. Yazdani-Chamzini A., Shariati S. Selection of material handing equipment system for surface mines by using a combination of fuzzy MCDM models // International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2013. Vol. 5. No. 12. pp. 1501-1511.

55. Yazdani-Chamzini A. An integrated fuzzy multi criteria group decision making model for handling equipment selection // JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT. 2014. Vol. 20. No. 5. pp. 660-673. https://www.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.802714.

56. Masoumi I., Naraghi S., Rashidi-nejad F., Masoumi S. Application of fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making to select and to rank the post-mining land-use // Environmental Earth Sciences. 2014. Vol. 72. No. 1. pp. 221-231. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2948-0.

57. Govindan K., Kannan D., Shankar K. M. Evaluating the drivers of corporate social responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: A multi-stakeholder perspective // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014. Vol. 84. No. 3. pp. 214-232. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.065.

58. Kizil M. S., Abdalla S., Canbulat I. Underground coal mine layout selection using analytical hierarchy process // Mining Technology. 2014. Vol. 123. No. 1. pp. 20-29. https://www.doi.org/10.1179/1743286313Y.0000000053.

59. Sousa Junior W. T. de, Souza M. J. F., Cabral I. E., Diniz M. E. Multi-Criteria Decision Aid methodology applied to highway truck selection at a mining company // Rem: Revista Escola de Minas. 2014. Vol. 67. No. 3. pp. 285-290. https://www.doi.org/10.1590/S0370-44672014000300007.

60. Poveda C. A., Lipsett M. G. Weighting sustainable development indicators (SDIS) for surface mining operations using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) // International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2014. Vol. 5. No. 2. pp. 200-222. https://www.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v5i2.199.

61. Rahimdel M. J., Ataei M. Application of analytical hierarchy process to selection of primary crusher // International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 2014. Vol. 24. No. 4. pp. 519-523. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.05.016.

62. Shen L., Muduli K., Barve A. Developing a sustainable development framework in the context of mining industries: AHP approach // Resources Policy. 2015. Vol. 46. pp. 15-26. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.10.006.

63. Karimnia H., Bagloo H. Optimum mining method selection using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process–Qapiliq salt mine, Iran // International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 2015. Vol. 25. No. 2. pp. 225-230. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.02.010.

64. Kursunoglu N., Onder M. Selection of an appropriate fan for an underground coal mine using the analytic hierarchy process // Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 2015. Vol. 48. pp. 101-109. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.02.005.

65. Ozfirat P. M., Ozfirat M. K., Malli T., Kahraman B. Integration of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective fuzzy goal programming for selection problems: An application on roadheader selection // Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2015. Vol. 29. No. 1. pp. 53-62. https://www.doi.org/10.3233/IFS-151569.

66. Sinan Erzurumlu S., Erzurumlu Y. O. Sustainable mining development with community using design thinking and multi-criteria decision analysis // Resources Policy. 2015. Vol. 46. pp. 6-14. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.001.

67. Wang C., Tu S. Selection of an appropriate mechanized mining technical process for Thin Coal Seam Mining // Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2015. Vol. 2015. pp. 893232. https://www.doi.org/10.1155/2015/893232.

68. Yavuz M. Equipment selection based on the AHP and Yager’s method // The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 2015. Vol. 115. No. 5. pp. 425-433.

69. Mihai A., Marincea A., Ekenberg L. A MCDM analysis of the Roşia Montană Gold Mining Project // Sustainability. 2015. Vol. 7. No. 6. pp. 7261-7288. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su7067261.

70. Wang C., Tu S., Zhang L., Yang Q., Tu H. Auxiliary transportation mode in a fully-mechanized face in a nearly horizontal thin coal seam // International Journal of Mining Science and Technology. 2015. Vol. 25. No. 6. pp. 963-968. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.09.013.

71. Stojanovic C., Bogdanovic D., Urosevic S. Selection of the optimal technology for surface mining by multi-criteria analysis // Kuwait Journal of Science. 2015. Vol. 42. No. 3. pp. 170-190.

72. Bodziony P., Kasztelewicz Z., Sawicki P. The problem of multiple criteria selection of the surface mining haul trucks // Archives of Mining Sciences. 2016. Vol. 61. No. 2. pp. 223-243. https://www.doi.org/10.1515/amsc-2016-0017.

73. Yavuz M. Equipment selection by using fuzzy TOPSIS method // IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2016. Vol. 44. pp. 42040. https://www.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/44/4/042040.

74. Bejari H., Daya A., Roudini A. Selection of chromite processing plant site using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) // Journal of Mining & Environment. 2017. Vol. 8. No. 2. pp. 155-162. https://www.doi.org/10.22044/jme.2016.632.

75. Asadi H. H., Sansoleimani A., Fatehi M., Carranza E. J. M. An AHP–TOPSIS predictive model for district-scale mapping of porphyry Cu–Au potential: A case study from salafchegan area (Central Iran) // Natural Resources Research. 2016. Vol. 25. No. 4. pp. 417-429. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11053-016-9290-7.

76. Safari M., Moghadder M. T., Javanshirgiv M. The selection of appropriate mining method for the Deh Gheybi Granite Quarry Mine using the FTOPSIS method // International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering. 2017. Vol. 8. No. 2. pp. 113. https://www.doi.org/10.1504/IJMME.2017.10005131.

77. Kasap Y., Subası E. Risk assessment of occupational groups working in open pit mining: Analytic hierarchy process // Journal of Sustainable Mining. 2017. Vol. 16. No. 2. pp. 38-46. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsm.2017.07.001.

78. Sobczyk E. J., Kicki J., Sobczyk W., Szuwarzyński M. Support of mining investment choice decisions with the use of multi-criteria method // Resources Policy. 2017. Vol. 51. pp. 94-99. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.11.012.

79. Balusa B. C., Singam J. Underground mining method selection using WPM and PROMETHEE // Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D. 2018. Vol. 99. No. 1. pp. 165-171. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s40033-017-0137-0.

80. Feizi F., Karbalaei-Ramezanali A., Tusi H. Mineral potential mapping via TOPSIS with Hybrid AHP–Shannon Entropy weighting of evidence: A case study for Porphyry-Cu, Farmahin Area, Markazi Province, Iran // Natural Resources Research. 2017. Vol. 26. No. 4. pp. 553-570. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11053-017-9338-3.

81. Bakhtavar E., Lotfian R. Applying an integrated fuzzy gray MCDM approach: A case study on mineral processing plant site selection. 2017. Vol. 51. No. 2. pp. 177-183. https://www.doi.org/10.22059/IJMGE.2017.232091.594669.

82. Zhang N., Zhou K., Du X. Application of fuzzy logic and fuzzy AHP to mineral prospectivity mapping of porphyry and hydrothermal vein copper deposits in the Dananhu-Tousuquan island arc, Xinjiang, NW China // Journal of African Earth Sciences. 2017. Vol. 128. pp. 84-96. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.12.011.

83. Khaba S., Bhar C. Quantifying SWOT analysis for the Indian coal mining industry using Fuzzy DEMATEL // Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2017. Vol. 24. No. 4. pp. 882-902. https://www.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2016-0089.

84. Patyk M., Bodziony P., Przylibski T. A., Kasza D. Analysis of multiple criteria selection and application of APEKS method in haul truck mining transport process // E3S Web of Conferences. 2018. Vol. 71. pp. 3. https://www.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20187100003.

85. Alpay S., Iphar M. Equipment selection based on two different fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods: Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR // Open Geosciences. 2018. Vol. 10. No. 1. pp. 661-677. https://www.doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0053.

86. Stevanović D., Lekić M., Krzanovic D., Ristović I. Application of MCDA in selection of different mining methods and solutions // Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal. 2018. Vol. 12. No. 1. pp. 171-180. https://www.doi.org/10.12913/22998624/85804.

87. Iphar M., Alpay S. A mobile application based on multi-criteria decision-making methods for underground mining method selection // International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment. 2018. Vol. 33. No. 7. pp. 480-504. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2018.1467655.

88. Özfirat P. M., Özfirat M. K., Malli T. Selection of coal transportation mode from the open pit mine to the thermic power plant using fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process // Transport. 2018. Vol. 33. No. 2. pp. 502-509. https://www.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2017.1295278.

89. Jankovic I., Djenadic S., Ignjatovic D., Jovancic P., Subaranovic T., Ristovic I. Multi-criteria approach for selecting optimal dozer type in open-cast coal mining // Energies. 2019. Vol. 12. No. 12. pp. 2245. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/en12122245.

90. Djenadic S., Ignjatovic D., Tanasijevic M., Bugaric U., Jankovic I., Subaranovic T. Development of the availability concept by using fuzzy theory with AHP correction, a case study: Bulldozers in the open-pit lignite mine // Energies. 2019. Vol. 12. No. 21. pp. 4044. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/en12214044.

91. Dao M., an Nguyen, Nguyen T., Pham H., Nguyen D., Tran Q., Dao H., Nguyen D., Dang H., Hens L. A hybrid approach using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS assessing environmental conflicts in the titan mining industry along Central Coast Vietnam // Applied Sciences. 2019. Vol. 9. No. 14. pp. 2930. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/app9142930.

92. Bahrami Y., Hassani H., Maghsoudi A. BWM-ARAS: A new hybrid MCDM method for Cu prospectivity mapping in the Abhar area, NW Iran // Spatial Statistics. 2019. Vol. 33. pp. 100382. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2019.100382.

93. Ghadernejad S., Jafarpour A., Ahmadi P. Application of an integrated decision-making approach based on FDAHP and PROMETHEE for selection of optimal coal seam for mechanization; A case study of the Tazareh coal mine complex, Iran // International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering. 2019. Vol. 53. No. 1. pp. 15-23.

94. Liang W., Luo S., Zhao G. Evaluation of cleaner production for gold mines employing a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach // Sustainability. 2019. Vol. 11. No. 1. pp. 146. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su11010146.

95. Husin A. E., Soehari T. D., Zulfiqar, Prabowo Y. S. Optimum haul road track selection on open pit coal mine by fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) implementation // International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology. 2019. Vol. 8. No. 6. pp. 156-160. https://www.doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.E6924.088619.

96. Ghasvareh M. A., Safari M., Nikkhah M. Haulage system selection for Parvadeh coal mine using multi-criteria decision making Methods // Mining Scince. 2019. Vol. 26. pp. 69-89. https://www.doi.org/10.37190/msc192606.

97. Kaźmierczak U., Blachowski J., Górniak-Zimroz J. Multi-criteria analysis of potential applications of waste from rock minerals mining // Applied Sciences. 2019. Vol. 9. No. 3. pp. 441. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/app9030441.

98. Abdollahei Sharif J., Jafarpour A., Yousefi S. A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to determine an optimal block size in open-pit mine modeling: A case study // Journal of Mining and Environment. 2020. Vol. 11. No. 2. pp. 611-627. https://www.doi.org/10.22044/jme.2020.9385.1842.

99. Chand P., Thakkar J. J., Ghosh K. K. Analysis of supply chain performance metrics for Indian mining & earth-moving equipment manufacturing companies using hybrid MCDM model // Resources Policy. 2020. Vol. 68. No. 1. С. 101742. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101742.

100. Dayo-Olupona O., Genc B., Onifade M. Technology adoption in mining: A multi-criteria method to select emerging technology in surface mines // Resources Policy. 2020. Vol. 69. No. 2. pp. 101879. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101879.

101. Jiskani I. M., Shah S. A. A., Qingxiang C., Zhou W., Lu X. A multi-criteria based SWOT analysis of sustainable planning for mining and mineral industry in Pakistan // Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 2020. Vol. 13. No. 21. pp. 116. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06090-3.

102. Singh R. K., Kumar A., Garza-Reyes J. A., Sá M. M. de Managing operations for circular economy in the mining sector: An analysis of barriers intensity // Resources Policy. 2020. Vol. 69. No. 4. pp. 101752. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101752.

103. Rahimdel M. J., Mirzaei M. Prioritization of practical solutions for the vibrational health risk reduction of mining trucks using fuzzy decision making // Archives of environmental & occupational health. 2020. Vol. 75. No. 2. pp. 112-126. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2019.1584085.

104. Karbalaei Ramezanali A., Feizi F., Jafarirad A., Lotfi M. Application of Best-Worst method and Additive Ratio Assessment in mineral prospectivity mapping: A case study of vein-type copper mineralization in the Kuhsiah-e-Urmak Area, Iran // Ore Geology Reviews. 2020. Vol. 117. pp. 103268. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2019.103268.

105. Burmistrov К., Osintsev N. A fuzzy AHP approach for ranking parameters and indicators of sustainable functioning and development of opening-up of an opencast system // Sustainable Development of Mountain Territories. 2020. Vol. 12. No. 3. С. 394-409. https://www.doi.org/10.21177/1998-4502-2020-12-3-394-409.

106. Pezeshkan M., Navid H. An approach based on Fuzzy Best-Worst method for sustainable evaluation of mining industries // Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi - Mineral Resources Management. 2020. Vol. 26. No. 2. pp. 41-70. https://www.doi.org/10.24425/gsm.2020.132563.

107. Sikora M. H. Choosing the location of the opening cut to expose brown coal deposits – problem solving and decision making with the use of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) // Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi - Mineral Resources Management. 2020. Vol. 36. No. 1. pp. 93-104. https://www.doi.org/10.24425/gsm.2020.132553.

108. Spanidis P.-M., Roumpos C., Pavloudakis F. A multi-criteria approach for the evaluation of low risk restoration projects in continuous surface lignite mines // Energies. 2020. Vol. 13. No. 9. pp. 2179. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/en13092179.

109. Gupta P., Mehlawat M. K., Aggarwal U., Charles V. An integrated AHP-DEA multi-objective optimization model for sustainable transportation in mining industry // Resources Policy. 2021. Vol. 71. pp. 101180. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.007.

110. Stanić N., Gomilanović M., Stepanović S., Softić S. Selection of a rational truck model for waste transport at the open pit Gacko using the AHP method // Mining and Metallurgy Engineering Bor. 2021. No. 3-4. pp. 41-52. https://www.doi.org/10.5937/mmeb2104041S.

111. Malli T., Mizrak Ozfirat P., Yetkin M. E., Ozfirat M. K. Truck selection with the fuzzy-WSM method in trans-portation systems of open pit mines // Tehnicki vjesnik - Technical Gazette. 2021. Vol. 28. No. 1. pp. 56-64. https://www.doi.org/10.17559/TV-20190910100025.

112. Patyk M., Bodziony P., Krysa Z. A multiple criteria decision making method to weight the sustainability criteria of equipment selection for surface mining // Energies. 2021. Vol. 14. No. 11. pp. 3066. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/en14113066.

113. Urošević K., Gligorić Z., Miljanović I., Beljić Č., Gligorić M. Novel methods in multiple criteria decision-making process (MCRAT and RAPS): Application in the mining industry // Mathematics. 2021. Vol. 9. No. 16. pp. 1980. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/math9161980.

114. Mijalkovski S., Despodov Z., Mirakovski D., Adjiski V., Doneva N., Mijalkovska D. Mining method selection for underground mining with the application of VIKOR method // Podzemni radovi. 2021. No. 39. pp. 11-22. https://www.doi.org/10.5937/podrad2139011M.

115. Spanidis P.-M., Roumpos C., Pavloudakis F. A fuzzy-AHP methodology for planning the risk management of natural hazards in surface mining projects // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 4. pp. 2369. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su13042369.

116. Farkaš B., Hrastov A. Multi-criteria analysis for the selection of the optimal mining design solution - A case study on Quarry “Tambura” // Energies. 2021. Vol. 14. No. 11. pp. 3200. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/en14113200.

117. Jiskani I. M., Cai Q., Zhou W., Lu X., Shah S. A. A. An integrated fuzzy decision support system for analyzing challenges and pathways to promote green and climate smart mining // Expert Systems with Applications. 2022. Vol. 188. No. 2. pp. 116062. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116062.

118. Sarabi E. P., Darestani S. A. Developing a decision support system for logistics service provider selection employing fuzzy MULTIMOORA & BWM in mining equipment manufacturing // Applied Soft Computing. 2021. Vol. 98. No. 71. pp. 106849. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106849.

119. Feizi F., Karbalaei-Ramezanali A. A., Farhadi S. FUCOM-MOORA and FUCOM-MOOSRA: New MCDM-based knowledge-driven procedures for mineral potential mapping in greenfields // SN Applied Sciences. 2021. Vol. 3. No. 3. pp. 358. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04342-9.

120. Fernandes P. R. M., Lima H. M. de A framework for ranking the environmental risk of abandoned mines in the state of Minas Gerais/Brazil // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 24. pp. 13874. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su132413874.

121. Wang X., Yu D., Yuan C. Complementary development between China and Sub-Sahara Africa: Examining China’s mining investment strategies in Africa // Sustainability. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 21. pp. 11678. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su132111678.

122. Бурмистров К., Гавришев С., Осинцев Н., Пыталев И. Выбор стратегии устойчивого развития горнотехни-ческой системы методом MABAC // Известия ТулГУ. Науки о Земле. 2021. № 4. С. 268-283. https://www.doi.org/10.46689/2218-5194-2021-4-1-268-283.

123. Abualkishik A. Z., Almajed R., Almutairi S. A. Hybrid multi-criteria decision making model creation for bucket wheel excavator evaluation and selection // American Journal of Business and Operations Research. 2022. Vol. 6. No. 1. pp. 72-84. https://www.doi.org/10.54216/AJBOR.060106.

124. Chen L., Li H., Tian S. Application of AHP and DEMATEL for identifying factors influencing coal mine practitioners’ unsafe state // Sustainability. 2022. Vol. 14. No. 21. pp. 14511. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su142114511.

125. Javanshir Giv M., Aryafar A., Safari M. The selection of an appropriate method for Gazik Granite Quarry mine using a hybrid multi- criteria decision making method // International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering. 2022. Vol. 56. No. 1. pp. 67-74. https://doi.org/10.22059/IJMGE.2021.306813.594859.

126. Khosravi V., Shirazi A., Shirazy A., Hezarkhani A., Pour A. B. Hybrid fuzzy-analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for porphyry copper prospecting in Simorgh Area, Eastern Lut Block of Iran // Mining. 2022. Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 1-12. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/mining2010001.

127. Amaro S. L., Barbosa S., Ammerer G., Bruno A., Guimerà J., Orfanoudakis I., Ostręga A., Mylona E., Strydom J., Hitch M. Multi-criteria decision analysis for evaluating transitional and post-mining options - An innovative perspective from the EIT ReviRIS project // Sustainability. 2022. Vol. 14. No. 4. pp. 2292. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su14042292.

128. Patyk M., Bodziony P. Application of the analytical hierarchy process to select the most appropriate mining equipment for the exploitation of secondary deposits // Energies. 2022. Vol. 15. No. 16. pp. 5979. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/en15165979.

129. He L., Yuan D., Ren L., Huang M., Zhang W., Tan J. Evaluation model research of coal mine intelligent construction based on FDEMATEL-ANP // Sustainability. 2023. Vol. 15. No. 3. pp. 2238. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su15032238.

130. Jalali Z., Namin F. S. Development of a new system for improving blastability by using the Fuzzy Delphi AHP method // International Journal of Mining and Geo-Engineering. 2023. Vol. 57. No. 1. pp. 47-53. https://www.doi.org/10.22059/IJMGE.2022.340855.594961.

131. Babaeian M., Sereshki F., Ataei M., Nehring M., Mohammadi S. Application of soft computing, statistical and multi-criteria decision-making methods to develop a predictive equation for prediction of flyrock distance in open-pit mining // Mining. 2023. Vol. 3. No. 2. pp. 304-333. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/mining3020019.

132. Monardes V., Sepúlveda J. M. Multi-criteria analysis for circular economy promotion in the management of Tailings Dams: A case study // Minerals. 2023. Vol. 13. No. 4. pp. 486. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/min13040486.

133. Ozdemir A. C. Use of integrated AHP-Topsis method in selection of optimum mine planning for open-pit mines // Archives of Mining Sciences. 2023. Vol. 68. No. 1. pp. 35-53. https://www.doi.org/10.24425/ams.2023.144316.

134. Samimi Namin F., Ghasemzadeh H., Aghajari A. M. A comprehensive approach to selecting mine transportation system using AHP and FUZZY-TOPSIS // Decision Making and Analysis. 2023. Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 23-39. https://www.doi.org/10.55976/dma.12023117323-39.

135. Yin L., Yi J., Lin Y., Lin D., Wei B., Zheng Y., Peng H. Evaluation of green mine construction level in Tibet based on entropy method and TOPSIS // Resources Policy. 2024. Vol. 88. pp. 104491. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104491.

136. Rouhani M. M., Namin F. S. Investigate the potential of using fuzzy similarity in decision making under uncertainty for mining projects // Resources Policy. 2023. Vol. 86. pp. 104087. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104087.

137. Cardozo F. A. C., Campos H. J. S., Petter C. O., Ambrós W. M. Application of Monte Carlo Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP) in underground mining access selection // Mining. 2023. Vol. 3. No. 4. pp. 773-785. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/mining3040042.

138. Burmistrov K. V., Osintsev N. A., Rakhmangulov A. N., Yusupov M. E. Multi-criteria analysis of deep pits sustainable development strategy // Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University Geo Assets Engineering. 2023. Vol. 334. No. 12. pp. 76-96. https://www.doi.org/10.18799/24131830/2023/12/4223.

139. Rakhmangulov A., Burmistrov K., Osintsev N. Multi-criteria system’s design methodology for selecting open pits dump trucks // Sustainability. 2024. Vol. 16. No. 2. С. 863. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/su16020863.

140. Гавришев С., Рахмангулов А., Грязнов М., Лапаева О. Управление развитием горнодобывающего пред-приятия. Информационные модели и методы: Монография. Магнитогорск: МГТУ им. Г.И.Носова, 2002. 245 c. ISBN 5-89514-332-6.

141. Горное дело: Терминологический словарь / Cост. К. Трубецкой [и др.]. 5-e изд. Москва: Издательство «Горная книга», 2016. 635 c. ISBN 978-5-98672-435-5.

142. Бурмистров К. Геотехнологические решения по формированию системы вскрытия глубоких горизонтов карьеров: монография. Магнитогорск: Изд-во Магнитогорск. гос. техн. ун-та им. Г.И. Носова, 2023. 297 c. ISBN 978-5-9967-2950-0.

143. Тихоненко Е. Организация проектирования карьеров // Инженерный вестник Дона. 2018. Т. 2. C. 4828.

144. Козловский Е. Горная энциклопедия. Москва: Советская энциклопедия, 1984. 560 c. ISBN 5-85270-007-X.

145. Перятинский А. Концепция формирования производственного процесса горнодобывающего предприятия с параметрами приемлемого риска травмирования // Известия Тульского государственного университета. Науки о Земле. 2022. № 2. С. 113-130. https://doi.org/10.46689/2218-5194-2022-2-1-113-130.

146. Корнилов С., Рахмангулов А., Шаульский Б. Основы логистики: Учеб. пособие. Москва: ФГБОУ “Учебно-методический центр по образованию на железнодорожном транспорте”, 2016. 302 c. ISBN 978-5-89035-918-6.

147. Jiskani I. M., Cai Q., Zhou W., Ali Shah S. A. Green and climate-smart mining: A framework to analyze open-pit mines for cleaner mineral production // Resources Policy. 2021. Vol. 71. pp. 102007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102007.