4.7 Article

Novel Methods in Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Process (MCRAT and RAPS)-Application in the Mining Industry

Journal

MATHEMATICS
Volume 9, Issue 16, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9161980

Keywords

multiple criteria decision making; novel methods; mining industry; blasting pattern

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces two novel multiple criteria decision making methods and applies them to decision-making processes in the mining industry. The selection of optimal parameters for blasting design, as well as choosing the most suitable blasting pattern while respecting the characteristics of the working environment and production conditions, are crucial aspects discussed in the study.
Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) is a supporting tool which is widely spread in different areas of science and industry. Many researchers have confirmed that MCDM methods can be useful for selecting the best solution in many different problems. In this paper, two novel methods are presented and applied on existing decision-making processes in the mining industry. The first method is multiple criteria ranking by alternative trace (MCRAT) and the second is ranking alternatives by perimeter similarity (RAPS). These two novel methods are demonstrated in decision-making problems and compared with the ranking of the same alternatives by other MCDM methods. The mining process often includes drilling and blasting operations as the most common activities for exploitation of raw materials. For optimal blasting design it is important to select the most suitable parameters for the blasting pattern and respect characteristics of the working environment and production conditions. By applying novel methods, how to successfully select the most proper blasting pattern respecting all conditions that must be satisfied for economic aspects and the safety of employees and the environment is presented.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available