Underground coal mine layout selection using analytical hierarchy process

Abstract

One of the most critical and complicated steps in mine planning is the selection of a suitable layout based on geological, geographical, geotechnical and economical parameters. These parameters influence the choice of different layouts of coal mine workings and normally examined on the basis of experience gained in the coalfields. The wide ranging combinations of geological, geotechnical and mining conditions make the selection of the optimum design and layout for a particular situation a difficult task. Variations in these parameters result in multiple feasible mine layouts; where each layout entails some inherent problems and the optimal layout is the one that offers the least problems. These variations in designs result in complex multi-decision situations that cannot be solved by a simple technique. This study applies the analytical hierarchy process in selection of the most viable panel orientation for a longwall operation. A back analysis of this technique was conducted at a mine located in Central Queensland, Australia. The geological and geotechnical aspects of the mine resulted in variations in the recommended panel orientations. Three different mine layouts with variable geological and geotechnical impacts were evaluated and the optimum mine layout was determined. This study also challenged the viability of the results obtained by performing a consistency check at every critical stage of the project.

Keywords

Layout selection Underground coal mining Analytical hierarchy process Geology Geotechnical Mining

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ataei

, Janshidi

, Sereshki

and Jalali

2008. Mining method selection by AHP Approach, J South Afr Inst. Min. Metall., 108, (12), 741–750.

Benítez

, Delgado-Galván

, Izquierdo

and Pérez-García

2011. Achieving matrix consistency in AHP through linearization, Appl. Math. Modell., 35, 4449–4457.

Ekipman

2003. A decision support system for optimal equipment selection in open pit mining: analytical hierarchy process, Istanbul Univ. Min. Eng. Depart., 16, (2), 1–11.

Harker

1987. Derivatives of the perron root of a positive reciprocal matrix: with applications to the analytic hierarchy process, Appl. Math. Comput., 22, 217–232.

Kardi

2006. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) tutorial, http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/ (accessed 10 March 2012).

and Ma

2007. Detecting and adjusting ordinal and cardinal inconsistencies through a graphical and optimal approach in AHP models, Comput. Operat. Res., 34, (3), 780–798.

Musingwini

and Minnitt

2008. Ranking the efficiency of selected platinum mining methods using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on ‘Platinum in transformation, Witwatersrand, South Africa, October, The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 319–327.

Saaty

1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, Eur. J. Operat. Res., 48, (1), 9–26.

Saaty

2003. Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary, Eur. J. Operat. Res., 145, 85–91.

10.

Shahriar

, Bakhtavar

, Saeedi

and Akbarpour

2007. A new numerical method and AHP for mining method selection, Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on ‘High performance mine production’, Aachen, Germany, May, International Mining Symposia, 289–306.

11.

Yavuz

, Iphar

and Once

2007. The optimum support design selection by using AHP method for the main haulage road, J. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol., 23, 111–119.