پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 9 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 446 |
| تعداد مقالات | 5,719 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,018,501 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,527,296 |
بهرهگیری از تکنیک ارزیابی مرکب ضرب جمع وزنی فازی در تعیین اولویت روشهای استخراج زیرزمینی | ||
| نشریه مهندسی عمران امیرکبیر | ||
| دوره 56، شماره 3، 1403، صفحه 361-374 اصل مقاله (891.68 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22060/ceej.2024.22828.8056 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| زینب جهانبانی1؛ مجید عطائی پور* 1؛ علی مرتضوی2 | ||
| 1گروه مهندسی استخراج معدن، دانشکده مهندسی معدن، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشکده معدن و علوم زمین، دانشگاه نظربایف، آستانا، قزاقستان | ||
| چکیده | ||
| نیاز به استفاده از مواد معدنی طی سالهای اخیر، موجب توسعه حجم عملیات معدنی و در نتیجه افزایش عمق استخراج معادن شده است. با افزایش عمق معادن، تعداد متغیرها و پارامترهای ژئومکانیکی دارای عدم قطعیت نیز افزایش مییابد. از اینرو فعالیتهای معدنکاری زیرزمینی میتوانند با ریسکهای دارای پیامدهای فاجعهبار همراه باشند. انتخاب یک روش استخراج زیرزمینی مناسب و ایمن، مطالعه و ردهبندی این روشها از دیدگاه ارزیابی ریسک همراه با طراحی معدن و قبل از شروع معدنکاری، میتواند کاهش ریسکهای جانی و مالی را در پی داشته و در پیشگیری از حوادث موثر باشد. با توجه به اهمیت موضوع، در این پژوهش با استفاده از تکنیک ارزیابی مرکب ضرب‑جمع وزنی فازی اقدام به ردهبندی و تعیین میزان اهمیت برخی از مهمترین روشهای استخراج زیرزمینی از دیدگاه ارزیابی ریسک و با در نظر گرفتن عدم قطعیت و ریسک پارامترهای ژئومکانیکی تاثیرگذار شد. از آنجایی که روش نوین ارزیابی مرکب ضرب‑جمع وزنی فازی تا به حال در حوزه مطالعات معدنی استفاده نشده است، بنابراین کاربرد آن را میتوان یکی دیگر از نوآوریهای پژوهش حاضر برشمرد. انجام تحقیق، با طراحی پرسشنامه و نظرسنجی از کارشناسان آغاز شد. سپس روش ارزیابی مرکب ضرب‑جمع وزنی فازی پیادهسازی و اجرا شد. در نهایت با انجام محاسبات مربوطه، میزان پارامتر و ارزش نهایی روشهای استخراج زیرزمینی تعیین و گزینههای استخراج رتبهبندی شدند. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش نشان میدهند که روشهای اتاق و پایه، استخراج از طبقات فرعی، کندن و پرکردن و تخریب در طبقات فرعی به ترتیب دارای بیشترین میزان وزن میباشند. به این ترتیب روش اتاق و پایه در مقایسه با سایر روشهای مورد مطالعه از بیشترین پتانسیل و روش تخریب در طبقات فرعی نیز از کمترین پتانسیل در ایجاد ریسک و ناپایداری برخوردار هستند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| مولفههای ژئومکانیکی؛ رتبهبندی روشهای استخراج زیرزمینی؛ ارزیابی ریسک؛ ارزیابی مرکب ضرب جمع وزنی فازی | ||
| موضوعات | ||
| استخراج معدن | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Utilization of fuzzy Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment technique to rank the underground mining methods | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Zeinab Jahanbani1؛ Majid Ataee-pour1؛ Ali Mortazavi2 | ||
| 1Mine exploitation, Mining engineering, Amirkabir university of technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2School of Mining and Geosciences. Nazarbayev University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The need to use minerals in recent years has led to the development of the volume of mining operations and, as a result, increased mining depth. With the increase in the depth of mines and as a result the number of geotechnical/geomechanical parameters/variables with uncertainty, underground mining activities can be associated with hazards and risks with catastrophic consequences. Choosing an appropriate and safe underground mining method, studying, and ranking from the risk assessment viewpoint along with mine design from the early stages of mining can lead to the reduction of life and financial risks. It can also be effective in preventing accidents. Considering the importance of the subject, in this research, using the fuzzy WASPAS technique, it was being studied, ranked, and determined the importance of some of the most important underground mining methods from the perspective of risk assessment and taking into account the uncertainty and risk of geomechanical parameters. The research started with the design of a questionnaire and a survey of experts. Then the fuzzy WASPAS method was implemented. Finally, by performing relevant calculations, the final weights of underground mining methods were determined and they were ranked. The results of the research show that the methods of Room & Pillar, Sublevel Stoping, Cut & Fill, and Sublevel Caving have the highest weight, respectively. Therefore, compared to the other methods, the method of Room & Pillar has the highest and the method of Sublevel Caving has the lowest potential in creating risk and instability. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Geomechanical Criteria, Ranking of Underground Mining Methods, Risk Assessment, Fuzzy WASPAS | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] M. Dunn, Uncertainty in ground support design and implementation in underground mining, in: Ground Support 2013: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 2013, pp. 345-358. [2] S. Behraftar, Management of geotechnical risks in stopes of underground mines in Iran, Tehran University, 2008. [3] R. Peele, Mining engineering hand, John Wiley & Sons, INC., 1941. [4] H.L. Hartman, J.M. Mutmansky, Introductory mining engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2002. [5] R.G.K. Morrison, A philosophy of ground control: A bridge between theory and practice, Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, McGill University, 1976. [6] D.H. Laubscher, Selection of mass underground mining methods, Design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines, (1981) 23-38. [7] D. Nicholas, J. Mark, Feasibility study–selection of a mining method integrating rock mechanics and mine planning, in: 5th Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference. San Francisco, 1981, pp. 1018-1031. [8] H.L. Hartman, S.G. Britton, J.M. Mutmansky, D.W. Gentry, W.J. Schlitt, M. Karmis, M.M. Singh, SME mining engineering handbook, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Denver, 1992. [9] L. Miller-Tait, R. Panalkis, R. Poulin, UBC mining method selection, in: Proceeding of the mine planning and equipment selection symposium, 1995, pp. 163-168. [10] C. Clayton, R. Pakalnis, J. Meech, A knowledge[1]based system for selecting a mining method, in: IPPM conference, Canada, 2002, pp. 161-178. [11] A. Karadogan, A. Kahriman, U. Ozer, Application of fuzzy set theory in the selection of underground mining method, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 108(2) (2008) 73-79. [12] M. Ataei, M. Jamshidi, F. Sereshki, S. Jalali, Mining method selection by AHP approach, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 108(12) (2008) 741-749. [13] R. Mikaeil, M.Z. Naghadehi, M. Ataei, R. Khalokakaie, A decision support system using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and TOPSIS approaches for selection of the optimum underground mining method, Archives of Mining Sciences, 54(2) (2009) 341-368. [14] S. Alpay, M. Yavuz, Underground mining method selection by decision making tools, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24(2) (2009) 173-184. [15] D. Bogdanovic, D. Nikolic, I. Ilic, Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 84 (2012) 219-233. [16] R.K. Mishra, M. Rinne, Geotechnical Risk Classification for Underground Mines/Klasyfikacja Poziomu Zagrożenia Geotechnicznego W Kopalniach Podziemnych, Archives of Mining Sciences, (2015). [17] M. Iphar, S. Alpay, A mobile application based on multi-criteria decision-making methods for underground mining method selection, InternationalJournal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 33(7) (2019) 480-504. [18] B.C. Balusa, A.K. Gorai, Acomparative study of various multi-criteria decision-making models in underground mining method selection, Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 100 (2019) 105-121. [19] B.C. Balusa, A.K. Gorai, Sensitivity analysis of fuzzy[1]analytic hierarchical process (FAHP) decision-making model in selection of underground metal mining method, Journal of sustainable mining, 18(1) (2019) 8-17. [20] K. Kalenchuk, V. Falmagne, A. Gelover, I. Montiel, J. Luzania, Risk evaluation, design, implementation, instrumentation, and verification for crown pillar extraction at Pinos Altos mine, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 52(12) (2019) 4997-5011. [21] O. Ghazdali, J. Moustadraf, T. Tagma, B. Alabjah, F. Amraoui, Study and evaluation of the stability of underground mining method used in shallow-dip vein deposits hosted in poor quality rock, Mining of Mineral Deposits, 15(3) (2021) 31-38. [22] F.S. Namin, A. Ghadi, F. Saki, A literature review of Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) towards mining method selection (MMS), Resources Policy, 77 (2022) 102676. [23] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, A. Zakarevicius, Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment, Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6) (2012) 3-6. [24] Z. Turskis, E. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, N. Kosareva, A novel hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection, (2015). [25] S. Bajić, D. Bajić, B. Gluščević, V. Ristić Vakanjac, Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to underground mining method selection, Symmetry, 12(2) (2020) 192. [26] B.C. Balusa, A.K. Gorai, Acomparative study of various multi-criteria decision-making models in underground mining method selection, Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 100(1) (2019) 105-121. [27] B.C. Balusa, J. Singam, Underground mining method selection using WPM and PROMETHEE, Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 99(1) (2018) 165-171. [28] H. Dehghani, A. Siami, P. Haghi, A new model for mining method selection based on grey and TODIM methods, Journal of Mining and Environment, 8(1) (2017) 49-60. [29] Z. Fu, X. Wu, H. Liao, F. Herrera, Underground mining method selection with the hesitant fuzzy linguistic gained and lost dominance score method, IEEE Access, 6 (2018) 66442-66458. [30] G. Popovic, B. Djordjevic, D. Milanovic, Multiple criteria approach in the mining method selection, Industrija, 47(4) (2019). [31] M.A. Idris, Probabilistic stabilityanalysisofunderground mine excavations, Luleå tekniska universitet, 2014. [32] S. Heidarzadeh, A. Saeidi, A. Rouleau, Use of probabilistic numerical modeling to evaluate the effect of geomechanical parameter variability on the probability of open-stope failure: a case Study of the Niobec Mine, Quebec (Canada), Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 53(3) (2020) 1411-1431. [33] R. Rafiee, M. Ataei, R. Khalokakaie, S.M.E. Jalali, F. Sereshki, Determination and assessment of parameters influencing rock mass cavability in block caving mines using the probabilistic rock engineering system, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 48 (2015) 1207-1220. [34] R. Mishra, R. Kiuru, L. Uotinen, M. Janiszewski, M. Rinne, Combining expert opinion and instrumentation data using Bayesian networks to carry out stope collapse risk assessment, in: MGR 2019: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 2019, pp. 85- 96. [35] E.T. Brown, Risk assessment and management in underground rock engineering—an overview, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 4(3) (2012) 193-204. [36] E.T. Brown, A book in Block caving geomechanics, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 2002. [37] J. Hadjigeorgiou, Understanding, managing and communicating geomechanical mining risk, Mining Technology, 129(3) (2020) 159-173. [38] M. Janiszewski, S. Pontow, M. Rinne, Industry survey on the current state of stope design methods in the underground mining sector, Energies, 15(1) (2021) 240. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 736 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 696 |
||