IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i16p1980-d617308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Katarina Urošević

    (Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Đušina 7, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Zoran Gligorić

    (Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Đušina 7, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Igor Miljanović

    (Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Đušina 7, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Čedomir Beljić

    (Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Đušina 7, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Miloš Gligorić

    (Faculty of Mining and Geology, University of Belgrade, Đušina 7, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarina Urošević & Zoran Gligorić & Igor Miljanović & Čedomir Beljić & Miloš Gligorić, 2021. "Novel Methods in Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Process (MCRAT and RAPS)—Application in the Mining Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:16:p:1980-:d:617308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/16/1980/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/16/1980/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nolberto Munier & Eloy Hontoria & Fernando Jiménez-Sáez, 2019. "Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-030-02726-1, July-Dece.
    2. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miodrag Čelebić & Dragoljub Bajić & Sanja Bajić & Mirjana Banković & Duško Torbica & Aleksej Milošević & Dejan Stevanović, 2024. "Development of an Integrated Model for Open-Pit-Mine Discontinuous Haulage System Optimization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Shanky Garg & Rashmi Bhardwaj, 2024. "Exploring the influence of factors causing stress among doctoral students by combining fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP with a triangular approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4695-4719, August.
    3. Wen, Hanguan & Liu, Xiufeng & Yang, Ming & Lei, Bo & Cheng, Xu & Chen, Zhe, 2023. "An energy demand-side management and net metering decision framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    4. Abdullah M. Barasin & Ammar Y. Alqahtani & Anas A. Makki, 2024. "Performance Evaluation of Retail Warehouses: A Combined MCDM Approach Using G-BWM and RATMI," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Katarina Urošević & Zoran Gligorić & Ivan Janković & Branko Gluščević & Čedomir Beljić, 2025. "Simulation of MCDM Process—Stope and Fan Pattern Selection in an Underground Mine with Uncertainty," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-28, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    2. Guh, Yuh-Yuan, 1997. "Introduction to a new weighting method -- Hierarchy consistency analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 215-226, October.
    3. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    5. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    7. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    8. Roberto Cervelló Royo & Fernando García García & Francisco Guijarro-Martínez & Ismael Moya-Clemente, 2011. "Housing Ranking: a model of equilibrium between buyers and sellers expectations," ERSA conference papers ersa11p314, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Qian-Yun Tan & Cui-Ping Wei & Qi Liu & Xiang-Qian Feng, 2016. "The Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method Based on Novel Information Measures," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(05), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    11. Ren, Hongbo & Gao, Weijun & Zhou, Weisheng & Nakagami, Ken'ichi, 2009. "Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5484-5493, December.
    12. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    13. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2002. "Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded into EUGENE model: A multicriteria approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 436-448, June.
    14. Tomislav Sunko & Marko Mladineo & Mirjana Kovačić & Toni Mišković, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
    15. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    16. Hugo Díaz & Carlos Guedes Soares, 2021. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Evaluate Floating Offshore Wind Farms Siting in the Canary Islands (Spain)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Jaroslaw Witkowski & Jakub Marcinkowski & Maja Kiba-Janiak, 2020. "A Comparative Analysis of Electronic Freight Exchanges in the United States and Europe with the Use of the Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method “Promethee”," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 476-487.
    18. Dias, Luis C. & Lamboray, Claude, 2010. "Extensions of the prudence principle to exploit a valued outranking relation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(3), pages 828-837, March.
    19. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    20. Marcio Pereira Basilio & Valdecy Pereira & Fatih Yigit, 2023. "New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-34, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:16:p:1980-:d:617308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.