Yerbilimleri, 35 (3), 271-282

Hacettepe niversitesi Yerbilimleri Uygulama ve Aratrma Merkezi Blteni

Bulletin of the Earth Sciences Application and Research Centre of Hacettepe University

A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Select the Proper Roadheader in Tabas

Coal Mine Project of Iran
ran Tabas Kmr Madeni Projesinde Uygun Tnel Ama Makinas
Seimi iin Bulank AHP Yaklam
ARASH EBRAHIMABADI1*
Department of Mining, Faculty of Engineering, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Qaemshahr, Iran

Geli (received) : 30 Mart (March) 2014

Kabul (accepted) : 12 Aralk (December) 2014
ABSTRACT
Machinery equipment selection, particularly mechanical excavators in mechanized mining operations, is one of
the most important issues through a mine project planning and design, and has a remarkable effect on speed and
cost of excavating operation. Therefore, it is an essential matter and needs to be concerned and managed appropriately. Alike other mechanized projects, mechanized coal mining is very machinery-intensive so that appropriate
equipment selection plays a key role in projects success and productivity. In this respect, it is crucial to consider
the basic parameters such as geological and geotechnical properties of ore deposit, its surrounding strata, economic and technical parameters, etc through the selection process; hence, choosing the major equipment and
mechanical miners such as roadheaders in mechanized coal mining is a multi-criteria decision making problem. A
multi-criteria decision making method is used to rank available roadheaders based on a set of criteria, ultimately
leading to suggest the high-ranked one as the best option.This paper presents an evaluation model based on
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) approach to select the proper roadheading machine in Tabas coal
mine project; the largest and the only fully mechanized coal mine in Iran. This method assists mine designers and
decision makers in the process of roadheader selection under fuzzy environment where the vagueness and uncertainty are taken into account with linguistic variable parameterized by triangular fuzzy numbers. The broad issue
includes three possible roadheading machines and five criteria to evaluate them. The suggested method applied
to the mine and the most appropriate roadheader, among three candidate roadheaders, has been ranked and
selected as DOSCO MD1100 roadheader with the highest weight of 0.435. The weights of other options namely
KOPEYSK KP21 and WIRTH T2.11 found as 0.323 and 0.242, respectively.
Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process; Roadheader Selection; Tabas Coal
Mine Project
Z
zellikle mekanize madencilik iletmelerinde kullanlan mekanik kazclarda olduu gibi makina techizat seimi,bir
maden projesi planlamas ve dizaynndaki en nemli konudur ve kazma ileminin hz ve maliyeti zerinde belirgin etkisi bulunmaktadr. Bu nedenle, nemli bir konu olup uygun ekilde ilgilenilmesi ve iletilmesi gerekmektedir.Tpk dier mekanize projelerdeki gibi, mekanize kmr madencilii makina younluunun ok fazla olduu
bir alan olup, uygun ekipman seimi projenin baarsnda ve retimde anahtar rol oynar.Bu balamda, maden
yatann jeolojik ve jeoteknik temel parametreleri, evreleyen seviyelerin zellikleri ile ekonomik ve teknik parametrelerin hesaba katlmasok nemlidir. Dolaysyla, mekanize kmr madenciliindeki tnel ama makinalar
gibi ana ekipman seimi, mekanize kmr madenciliinde ok-kriterli karar almay gerektiren problem oluturur.

* A. Ebrahimabadi
e-posta: Arash.xer@gmail.com; A.Ebrahimabadi@Qaemshahriau.ac.ir

272

Yerbilimleri

ok-kriterli karar alma yntemi bir dizi kriter baz alnarak en ok opsiyonda en yksek dereceyi alabilen tnel ama
makinalarn derecelendirmekte kullanlr. Bu makale, rann en byk ve tek tam mekanize olarak alan Tabas
kmr madeni projesine uygun tnel ama makinasn Bulank Analitik Hiyerari lemi (Fuzzy AHP) yntemine
dayal deerlendirme modeli sunmaktadr.Bu yntem, tnel ama makinas seiminde maden oca tasarmclarna
ve karar mercilerine belirsiz koullarn olduu durumda destek olacaktr. Piyasada yaygn olan olas tnel ama
makinas ile deerlendirme aamasnda kullanlan be kriter alma kapsamnda ele alnmtr.nerilen yntem
madene uygulanm ve aday arasndan en uygun tnel ama makinas olan, 0.435 arlkla DOSCO MD1100
seilmitir. Dier seeneklerden olan KOPEYSK KP21 ve WIRTH T2.11 srasyla 0.323 ve 0.242 arlk notu almtr.
Anahtar Kelimeler: ok-kriterli karar verme, bulank analitik hiyerari ilemi, tnel kazma makinas seimi, Tabas
kmr madeni projesi

INTRODUCTION
Once an ore body has been probed and outlined
and sufficient information has been collected to
warrant further analysis, the most appropriate
mining method is then chosen (Hamrin, 1986;
Hartman, 1992). Afterwards and at the next
step, due to machinery-intensity of most of
mining methods particularly in long-wall mining
method, the important process of selecting the
most proper excavator can begin. At this stage,
the selection is preliminary, serving only as the
basis and later it may be found necessary to revised details, but the basic principles for selecting the major excavator should remain a part of
the final planning. Selection of an appropriate
mining machine is a complex task that requires
consideration of many factors such as geotechnical, economic and operational factors.
The appropriate miner is the excavator which is
technically capable of cutting the ore and rock
in various ground conditions, while also being
a low-cost operation. This means that the best
machine is the one which presents the cheapest problem.
Currently, the mining companies are moving toward more profitable, productive and competitive arenas and therefore, mechanization is becoming an inevitable alternative to gain these
objectives; hence, the ever-increasing applications of mechanical miners such as roadheaders and other boom-type tunnelling machines
are some of the outcomes of project mechanizations, leading to their more extensive use
in the mining and civil construction industries
in recent years. Among machines employed in
mining activities, roadheaders are very popular

particularly in underground coal mining. Roadheaders have remarkable advantages including

high productivity, reliability, mobility, flexibility,
safety, selective excavation, less strata disturbances, fewer personnel and lower capital
and operating costs. To achieve these benefits as well as successful roadheader application, proper selection of the machine needs to
be accomplished appropriately. This generally
deals with geotechnical properties of rock formation to be excavated, machine performance,
machine size and flexibility, machine price and
total costs (Rostami et al, 1994). Moreover,
main aspects influencing on the roadheader
type selection include physical and mechanical
characteristics, economic, technical and productivity factors (Ebrahimabadi et al., 2012).
For a successful roadheader selection, some
alternative machines are primarily chosen in accordance with existing technical and economic
condition. Afterward, the proper type needs to
be appropriately selected through judicious decision making. Decision-making involves identifying and choosing alternatives based on their
performance values and the preferences of the
decision maker. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods, such as AHP and Fuzzy
AHP, which are used for mining related problems in the literature especially mining method
selection, make the evaluations using the same
evaluation scale and preference functions on
the criteria basis.
Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making methods
have been developed owing to the imprecision
in assessing the relative importance of attributes
and the performance ratings of alternatives with

Ebrahimabadi
respect to attributes. Imprecision may arise from
a variety of reasons: unquantifiable information,
incomplete information, unobtainable information and partial ignorance. Conventional multiple attribute decision making methods cannot
effectively handle problems with such imprecise
information.Basically AHP is a method of breaking down a complex, unstructured situation into
its components parts; arranging these parts, or
variables, into a hierarchic order; synthesize the
judgments to determine which variables have
the highest priority and should be acted upon
to influence the outcome of the situation. It uses
a hierarchical structure to abstract, decompose,
organize and control the complexity of decision
involving many attributes, and it uses informed
judgment or expert opinion to measure the relative value or contribution of these attributes and
synthesize a solution (Oguzitimur, 2011).The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), first proposed by
Saaty (1980), along with its extensions is one of
the most effective methods for multiple criteria
decision making problems and has been used in
many disciplines such as mining-related issues.
In many cases, application of AHP method can
be combined with some other methodologies
such as optimization, quality function deployment, and fuzzy logic. Combining an AHP with
fuzzy set theory through the process of roadheader selection permits greater flexibility in
the selection criteria and the appropriate decision making. A fuzzy-AHP (FAHP) retains many
of the advantages enjoyed by conventional
AHPs, in particular the relative ease with which
it handles multiple criteria and combinations
of qualitative and quantitative data. As with an
AHP, it provides a hierarchical structure, facilitates decomposition and pairwise comparison,
reduces inconsistency, and generates priority
vectors. Finally, an FAHP is able to reflect human thought in that it uses approximate information and uncertainty to generate proper decisions (Kahraman et al., 2003, 2004; Feizizadeh
et al., 2014). These characteristics qualify the
use of an FAHP as an appropriate and efficient
tool to assist with making complex decisions for
choosing roadheading machines in mining and
tunnelling projects. It should be stated that few
works have been conducted yet in which FAHP
to be applied to choose rodheaders.

273

The main reasoning for using fuzzy AHP has

also been that the conventional AHP with crisp
input data might not properly model actual human thinking in decision scenarios under uncertainty, especially for qualitative criteria. In
the fuzzy AHP, calculations are performed
using fuzzy numbers as opposed to the crisp
numbers used in the conventional AHP. For the
second category of classification, the chosen
application areas by different researchers and
practitioners have been personal, social, manufacturing sector, political, engineering, education, industry, government, management, etc.
Bitarafan and Ataei (2004) have used different
fuzzy methods as an innovative tool for criteria
aggregation in mining decision problems.Tutmez and Tercan (2007) used fuzzy modelling to
estimate mechanical properties of rocks. Tutmez and Kaymak (2008) applied a fuzzy methodology for optimization of slab production.
Acaroglu et al. (2006) used conventional AHP
approach for selection of roadheaders. Ataei et
al. (2008) have used the AHP method for mining method selection. Also, Alpay and Yavuz
(2009) have suggested a combination of AHP
and fuzzy logic methods for underground mining method selection. Yazdani-Chamzini and
Yakhchali (2012) have applied multi-criteria decision making methods in order to select Tunnel Boring Machine.
The aim of the present work is to select the
proper roadheader through a fuzzy AHP solution procedure. With that regard, Tabas coal
mine is considered as case study. In the following sections, a description of study area is firstly presented. In the next section, the concepts
of Fuzzy sets and Fuzzy AHP are illustrated.
Afterward, the procedure and calculations of
machine selection using Fuzzy AHP approach
is well demonstrated step by step. And finally,
a discussion on the used method and conclusions of the paper are presented respectively.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of Tabas coal mine
Tabas coal mine, the largest and unique fully
mechanized coal mine in Iran, is located in

Fuzzy set theory is a powerful tool to handle imprecise data and fuzzy

Fuzzyset
settheory
theoryisisaapowerful
powerfultool
tool to
to handle
handle
imprecise
and
more
A fuzzy
set isdata
general
formexpressions
of a crisp that
set.
Aare
fuzzy
Fuzzy
imprecise
data
andfuzzy
fuzzy
expressions
thatare
morenumber
natural
for
humans
than
rigid
mathematical
rules
and
equations
(Klir a
Fuzzy
set
theory
is
a
powerful
tool
to
handle
imprecise
datadata
and fuzzy
Fuzzy
set
theory
is
a
powerful
tool
to
handle
imprecise
and
fu
natural for humans than rigid mathematical rules and equations (Klir and Yuan, 1995; Vahdani
1,
which
1
addresses
ful
membership
and
0
expresses
no
natural for humans than rigid mathematical
rules
and equations
(Klir 2011).
and Yuan, 1995; Vahdani
and
Hadipour,
2010;
Ertugrul,
natural
rigid
mathematical
rules
andand
equations
(Klir(K
a
naturalfor
forhumans
humansthan
than
rigid
mathematical
rules
equations
and Hadipour, 2010; Ertugrul, 2011).
and Hadipour, 2010; Ertugrul, 2011). only
allow
0 or
1. There
arecrisp
different
types of fuzzy numbe
and
Hadipour,
2010;
A
fuzzy
set is general
form
of a2011).
set. A fuzzy number belongs to
and
Hadipour,
2010;Ertugrul,
Ertugrul,
2011).
A fuzzy set is general form of a crisp
set. A fuzzy number
belongs
to the closed
interval
0triangular
and
274
Yerbilimleri
Itaddresses
is often
convenient
toset.
work
withnumber
fuzz
1,
which
1number
ful
and
expresses
non-members
A fuzzy set is general form of a crisp set.situation.
Afuzzy
fuzzyset
belongs
interval
0 and
A
is general
formmembership
oftoa the
crispclosed
A0fuzzy
belongs to
A
fuzzy
set
is
general
form
of
a
crisp
set.
A
fuzzy
number
belong
1, which 1 addresses ful membership and
0 expresses
non-membership.
Whereas,
crisp numbers
sets
only
allow1 0simply,
or 1.
There
types
ofexpresses
fuzzy
that can
computed
and
aredifferent
usefulWhereas,
in
representatio
1, fuzzy
addresses
fulare
membership
andpromoting
0based
non-members
1, of
which
1 addresses
membership
0which
expresses
non-membership.
crisp
numbers
that
can
be utilised
on sets
central part
Iran near
the city offul
Tabas
in Yazd and
1,
which
1
addresses
ful
membership
and
0
expresses
non-mem
only allow 0 or 1. There are different types
of
fuzzy
numbers
that
can
be
utilised
based
on
the
situation.
It0isoroften
to worktypes
with
triangular
fuzzy
numbers
only
1.ItThere
areconvenient
different
of
fuzzy
numbers
thatBo
can
the
situation.
isconvenient
often
toand
work
with
province and
kmThere
far from
fuzzy
environment
(Van
Laarhoven
Pedrycz,
1983;
onlysituated
allow 0 75
or 1.
are southern
different types
ofallow
fuzzy
numbers
that
can
be utilised
based
on numbers
the
only
allow
0
or
1.
There
are
different
types
of
fuzzy
tha
convenient
to work with
triangular
fuzzy
numbers
(TFNs)
because
they
are
triangular
fuzzy
numbers
(TFNs)
because
they
Tabas. The situation.
mine areaItisisa often
part of
Tabas-Kerman
computed
simply,
and
are
useful
in
promoting
representations
and
inf
situation. It is often convenient to work with triangular fuzzy numbers
1999;
Ertugrul
and
Tus,
2007).
situation.
It
is
often
convenient
to
work
with
triangular
fuzzy
numbers
(TFNs)
because
they
are
situation.
It
is
often
convenient
to
work
with
triangular
fuzzy
num
are
computed
simply,
and
are
useful
in
promotcoal field. The coal field is divided into 3 parts in
fuzzy
environment
(Van
Laarhoven
and Pedrycz,
1983;
computed simply, and are useful in promoting
representations
and
information
processing
inBojadziev
a
computed
simply, and
are
useful
in promoting
representations
and and
inf
ing representations
representations
and
information
processwhich Parvadeh
region
with and
the extent
of 1200
computed
simply,
are useful
in promoting
and
information
processing
in a
computed
simply,
and
are
useful
in
promoting
representations
an
1999;
Ertugrul
and
Tus, 2007).
fuzzy
environment
(Van Laarhoven
and Pedrycz,
1983;
Bojadziev
andBojadziev,
Deng,
fuzzy
(Van
and
Pedrycz,
1983;
and
ing
in
a fuzzy
environment
(Van
Laarhoven
and
on
Km and 1.1
billion
tones of estimated
coal reA environment
fuzzy
number
Laarhoven
can
be
a1998;
TFN
if Bojadziev
its membe
fuzzy
environment
(Van Laarhoven
and Pedrycz,
fuzzy
environment
(Van
1983;
Bojadziev
and Bojadziev,
1998; 1983;
Deng,Bojadzie
Pedrycz,
1983;
Bojadziev
serve is the
biggest
and main
partLaarhoven
to continueand Pedrycz,
1999;
Ertugrul
and Tus,
2007). and Bojadziev, 1998;
1999;
Ertugrul
and Tus,
2007).

defined
as
equation
(1):
A fuzzy
number
on and

can
be 2007).
a TFN if its membership func
Deng,
1999;
Ertugrul
Tus,
excavation
and Ertugrul
fulfillmentand
forTus,
future
years. The
1999;
Ertugrul
and
Tus,
2007).
1999;
2007).
coal seam has eastern-western expansion with
defined
as equation
fuzzy
on
can
TFN
if itsmemberfuzzy
number(1):
on
be
cana be
TFN
ifits
membership
func
[0,1]
be
A fuzzy number on can be a TFNAAif
its number
membership
function
a ():
reducing trend in thickness toward east. Its

ship
function
be
defined
as
equation
1:
A
fuzzy
number

on

can
be
a
TFN
if
its
membership
A fuzzy
number
onm but
canin be
if its
membership
defined
as equation
(1): function (): [0,1] be
thickness ranges
from
0.5 to 2.2
the a TFN
defined
as equation
(1):
0, (1):

defined as equation
majority of
conditions
it has a (1):
consistent 1.8 m
defined
as equation
0,

(

(
)
) ,

thickness. Room and pillar and also long wall
( )( ) ,
() = {

()
=
{
(

mining methods are considered as the main

)
,

0,

( )( ) ,
(1)
0,

)
,

excavation methods in the mine. The use of

0,0,

() = { ( 0,
(

)
,

(
) ,

0, mine project was
roadheaders in
() = {coal
Tabas
())(
) , (1)

(
)(
the
),,work.

()

0,

=
{

(
),
(
Let

=
,

=
fuzzy
a consequence of mechanisation
of
(()

Let
be
),
(
) be
(

=
twonumbers,
fuzzy
Let

=
,

be
, 3two
1(
2
3,
1, 2 ,
3, )
1
2
3
1

(
)

= { 0, method with pow(1)2

()

Coal mining by
the long-wall
( )( ) ,
relations

two
fuzzy
numbers,
so
their
mathematical
relaexpressed
as
equations
(2-5):
0,

= (1 , 2 ,(2-5):
(1 , 2 , 3as
),
Let =
3 ) be two fuzzy numbers,
relations
expressed
equations
ered roof supports makes
rapid advance of the
0,

tions
expressed
as
equations
2-5:

= (
be twoexpressed
fuzzy as
numbers,
so their mathematical
Let = ( , , 3 ), other
1 , 2 , 3 )relations
equations
access roads necessary.1 On2 the
hand,
)(+)(
(+)
21, ,
+ two
2 , 3numb
+ 3
Let
), =1 ,(2-5):
(
) 1be
(11,,22, ,
3(
fuzzy
=
= (
33
3)
1 , 2 +
2 ,=

(+)
(
)(+)(
)
(

=
,

+
=

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
the two alternatives
for
mining
very
thick
coal
relations
expressed
as
equations
(2-5):
be two
fuzzy numbers,
so their mathematical
Let = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) relations
expressed
as equations (2-5):

)()(11,,
(11 +
() =
(11,,
22,,
33)(+)(
22,,
33)) =

13,, 22 +
22,, 33 +
31
= (
(+)
= (
seams, i.e. room-and-pillar and long wall in flat
(2)
relations
expressed
equations
(2-5):
,=
=use
(
,2, 2,3+
= (1 3 , 2
1()
(1 ,ofas
(2)
,
2 , 3 ) = (
+
(
+, 1
3 ) , , ,1, ,
(+)
seams, also
make
the
3 )()(
2 ,)
3 )(
2roadheader
3 )(+)(1 ,driv2(
1=
(+)
()
=
21 ,22+, 32
, 31
=

1 1 , 2, 2,3)()(
1 1
2 23 )=
1 1+
3 ,
3 )(+)(
3 (
ing galleries in the coal seams necessary (Ebra = ((1 , 2 , 3 )(+)(
(+)
+ 1,,2
+ 2, ,3+3))

()
- 6(3)
-(2)
(11()
, 3 )()(11,,22,, 33)) =

= (
=2011b;
himabadi et al.,
2011a;
1 , 22012).
1
3 =2(1
, 22 , 33 )()(
1 , 2 , 3 ) = (1 3 , 2 2 , 3
(3)

-6(3) - 6 () = (1 , 2 , 3 )()(1 , 2 , 3 ) = (1 3 , 2 2 , 3 1 )
)
()
- 6 - = (1 , 2 , 3 )()(1 , 2 , 3 ) = (
- 61-1 , 2 2 , 3 3
Adequate knowledge and comprehensive data
= (1 , 2 , 3 )()(1 , 2 , 3 ) = (1(4)
)
()

(4) 1 2 2 3 3
()
= (1 , 2problems
, 3 )()(are
, , 3 )
base on a number
of different
1 , re2 , 3 ) = (
1-
()
61- 2=2(31 ,
)()(
)
(
,

/
,

/
,

1 2 3
1 3 2 2 3/
(4)
()critical
= (1infrastructures.
, 2 , 3 )()(1There
, 2 , 3 ) = ( 1 1 , 2 2 , 3 32) 3
quested to analyse
)()(
)
(
()
(
/3 , 2 /2 , 3 /

= 1 , 2 , 3
1 , 2 , 3 =(5) 1(5)
() = (between
1 , 2 , 3 )()(
1 , 2 , 3 ) = (1 /3 , 2 /2 , 3 /1 )
are a close relationship
complexity
= (
(5)
()
and certainty,
so that;
increasing
the complex1 , 2 , 3 )()(
1 , 2 , 3 ) = (1 /3 , 2 /2 , 3 /1 )

Fuzzy theory

ity lead to decrease the certainty. Fuzzy logic,

Fuzzy AHP methodology
introduced by Zadeh (1965), can consider unFuzzy
AHPmethodology
methodology
Fuzzy
AHP
Fuzzy
AHP
methodology
certainty and solve problems where there are
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was developed primarily
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was deno sharp Fuzzy
boundaries
precise values. Fuzzy
AHPand
methodology
Analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) wasAnalytical
developed hierarchy
primarily by
Saaty(AHP)
(1980) was
and is
able to primarily
process
developed
the decision
problems
(Vaida
and Kumar, 20
veloped
primarily making
by Saaty
(1980) and
is able
logic provides a methodology for computing di- solve
solve (Klir
thehierarchy
decision
making
(Vaida
and
2006).
AHP
can
decompose
any Kumar,
to solve
the
decision
problems
solve
the Kumar,
decision
making
problems
(Vaida
20
rectly with
words
and
Yuan,
1995). problems
Analytical
process
(AHP) was
developed
primarily
bymaking
Saaty
(1980)
and(Vaida
is and
able
to
complex probleminto several sub-problems in terms of hiera
and
Kumar,
AHP levels
can decompose
any
complex
several
sub-problems
inand
terms
of 2006).
hierarchical
where
eachin
level
Fuzzy setsolve
theory
aprobleminto
powerful
tool
toproblems
handle
complex
probleminto
several
sub-problems
terms
theis decision
making
(Vaida
Kumar,
2006).
AHP
can
decompose
any of hiera
complex aprobleminto
several
sub-problems
in to each su
represents
set of criteria
or attributes
relative
imprecise data
and
fuzzy
expressions
that
are
represents
a set of criteria
attributesrepresents
relative
each
AHPwhere
utilizes
three
terms
oftoahierarchical
levels
where
eachrelative
level
set
ofsub-problem.
criteria
or
attributes
to each su
complex
probleminto
several or
sub-problems
in terms
of hierarchical
levels
each
level
more natural for humans than rigid mathemati- principles to solve problems (Aydogan, 2011): (a) structure o
represents
a
set
of
criteria
or
attributes
relative
principles
to solve and
problems
(Aydogan, 2011):
(a) structure
of the hierarchy,
(b) the2011):
matrix(a)
of structure o
cal rules represents
and
equations
Yuan,
principles
to solve
(Aydogan,
a set(Klir
of criteria
or 1995;
attributespair-wise
relative
each problems
sub-problem.
AHP
utilizes
three
to eachcomparison
sub-problem.
AHPand
utilizes
prin-for
ratios,
(c)
thethree
method
calculatin
Vahdani andpair-wise
Hadipour,
2010;
Ertugrul,
2011).
comparison ratios, and (c) the method
for
calculating
weights.
AHP summarises
the
ciples
to
solve problems
(Aydogan,
2011):
(a)for of
pair-wise
comparison
ratios,
and
(c) the
method
calculatin
principles to solve problems (Aydogan, 2011):
(a)
structure
of
the
hierarchy,
(b)
the
matrix
results of pair-wise comparisons in a matrix of pair-wise comp
A fuzzy set isresults
general
of a crisp
set. A fuzzy
of the
hierarchy, (Kahraman,
(b) the matrix
of pairof form
pair-wise
comparisons
in a matrixstructure
of pair-wise
comparisons
2008).
results offorpair-wise
comparisons
in a matrix
of pair-wise comp
pair-wise
ratios, and
(c)1,the method
calculating
weights.
summarises
number belongs
to comparison
the closed interval
0 and
wise comparison
ratios,
and AHP
(c) the
method the
Different
fuzzy
AHP
methods
are
proposed
by various author
Different
fuzzy
AHP
methods
proposed
bycalculating
various authors
(Van AHP
Laarhoven
and 2008).
Pedrycz,
which 1 addresses
full
membership
and are
0inexfor
weights.
summarises
the
results
of pair-wise
comparisons
a matrix
of
pair-wise
comparisons
Different
fuzzy AHP
methods(Kahraman,
are proposed
by various autho
presses non-membership.
Whereas,
crisp
sets
results
of
pair-wise
comparisons
in
a
matrix
ofChang
1983;
Buckley,
1985;
Boender
et
al.,
1989;
1992,
1983; Buckley, 1985; Boender et al., 1989; Chang 1992, 1996).These methods apply
a
only allowDifferent
0 or 1. There
are
different
types
of
pair-wise
comparisons
(Kahraman,
2008).
1983;
Buckley,
1985;
Boender
et
al.,
1989;
Chang
fuzzy AHP methods are proposed by various authors (Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz, 1992,

systematic
procedure by
to using
prioritize
the criteria
and alternatives
systematic procedure to prioritize the criteria
and alternatives
the concepts
of fuzzy

systematic
procedure
prioritize the
criteria apply
and alternatives
1983; Buckley, 1985; Boender et al., set
1989;
Chang
1992, to
1996).These
methods
theory
andpaper,
hierarchical
analysis.
In thisa paper, C
set theory and hierarchical structure analysis.
In this
Changsstructure
extent analysis
method
set theory
and hierarchical
structure
analysis.ofInfuzzy
this paper,
systematic
procedure
to prioritize
criteria
and1996)
alternatives
by because
using
thetheconcepts
(Chang,
is utilized
steps
of other
this approach ar
(Chang, 1996)
is utilized
because the
the steps
of this
approach
are relatively
easier
than the

1
equationprobleminto
j sup
m sub-problem.
nAHP
n (y))]
complex
several or
sub-problems
in terms
of nhierarchical
levels
where
represents
a(11):
set (11):
of
criteria
attributes relative
to
each
three
(x),
(
level
V (M2
M1)
[min
[
]yx
=(1/
ui each
, 1/utilizes
, 1/ ni=1 li )
equation
equation
(11):
M1
M2m
i=1
j=1 M=
i=1
gi
(l2 , m2 , u2 )
2: The degree
ofi=1possibility
ofi M2 =
complex probleminto several sub-problems in terms Step
of hierarchical
levels where
each level
represents
a
set
of
criteria
or
attributes
relative
to
each
sub-problem.
AHP
utilizes
three
principles to solve problems (Aydogan, 2011): (a) Step
structure
the hierarchy,
(b)ofthe
= (l2 , m2of
, u2 ) M1 = (l1 , m
2: Theofdegree
ofsup
possibility
M2 matrix
sup
represents a set of criteria
or attributes relative to equation
each
sub-problem.
AHP
utilizes
three
(11):
(x),
(y))]
V
(M2

M1)
=
[min
(

(x),
(y))]
sup
V
(M2

M1)
=
[min
(

M1
M2
yx
M1
M2
yx
principles
to M1)
solve=problems
(Aydogan,
(a) structure
of(11):
the hierarchy,
(b)
the matrix
of = (l , m , u ) M
(x),the
(y))]
sup
(11)
V (M2 comparison

[min
(
2011):
sup
M1(c)
M2
Step
2:
The
degree
ofexpresses
possibility
yx
pair-wise
ratios,
and
method
forequation
calculating
weights.
AHP
the2 (12-13):
2 2
(x),
(y))]
VV (M2

=
[min
(
(a)
(x),
(y))]
can
be
asofequations
(M2
M1)
M1)
= yx
[min
(M1
(11)
principles
to solve
problems
(Aydogan,
2011):
structure
of equivalently
the
hierarchy,
(b)
the summarises
matrix
ofM2 (11)
M2
M1
M2And
yx
pair-wise comparison ratios, and (c) the method for calculating
weights.
AHP
summarises
the
equation
(11):
Ebrahimabadi
275
results
of pair-wise
comparisons
in the
a matrix
offor
pair-wise
comparisons
(Kahraman,
2008).
sup
pair-wise
comparison
ratios, and (c)
method
calculating
weights.
AHP
summarises
the (y))]
sup
(x),
V
(M2

M1)
=
[min
(2008).
(x),
(y))]as

V
(M2

M1)
=
[min
(
M1
M2equations (12-13):
yx
M1
M2
yx
results of pair-wise comparisons in a matrix of pair-wise
comparisons
(Kahraman,
And
can
be
equivalently
expresses
And can be equivalently expresses as equations (12-13):
And can
be equivalently
expresses
as equations
(12-13):
results
of
pair-wise
comparisons
inexpresses
aproposed
matrix
ofas
pair-wise
comparisons
(Kahraman,
2008).
(d)Pedrycz,
(M
M2) =
V
(M
2M
1) = hgt
1 Laarhoven
And
can
be
equivalently
equations
(12-13):
Different
fuzzy
AHP
methods
are
by
various
authors
(Van
And
can
be
equivalently
expresses
as
equations
(12-13):
M2and
sup
Different fuzzy AHP methods are proposed by

(M2 (Van
M1) =Laarhoven
M2 (y))] (11)
M1 (x),
Different fuzzy AHP methods are proposed by variousV authors
Pedrycz,
yx[min(and

And
can
be (Van
equivalently
expresses
asPedrycz,
equations
(12-13):
various
authors
(Van
Laarhoven
Pedrycz,
Different
fuzzy AHP
methods
areand
proposed
by various
authors
Laarhoven
and
1983;
Buckley,
1985;
Boender
et al.,
1989;
Chang
1992,
1996).These
methods
apply
a (12-13):
And
can
be
equivalently
expresses
as(d)
equations
be
as
equa(d)
M
hgt (M
(Mmethods
M22)) =
=
V1992,
(Mcan
== hgt
M
V
(M
1983; Buckley,
Buckley, 1985;
1985; Boender
Boender et
et al.,
1989;
1996).These
apply
a
1983;
al.,(d)
1989; ChangAnd
22M
11)) equivalently
11 expresses
M2
M2
M
)
=
hgt
(M
M
)
=
(12)
V
(M
2
1
1
2
M2
12-13:
1983; Buckley,
1985;
Boender
al.,
1989;
1992,
1996).These
apply
a (12)
(M
M
=
V
(d)
systematic
procedure
prioritize
criteria
and tions
alternatives
by using
the
concepts
22M
11)) =
11 et
2))apply
M
=tohgt
hgt
(M
Mthe
=
(12)
V (M
(M
Chang
1992,
1996).These
methods
a Chang
1 methods
ifasmequations
m1 (12-13):
M2
M2(d)
2offuzzy
expresses
systematic procedure
to prioritize
the2 criteria
and alternatives
by
using
M1be
) =equivalently
hgt (M1theMconcepts
VAnd
(M2can
2) =M2 (d)of fuzzy
systematic
proceduretotoprioritize
prioritizethe
thecriteria
criteriaand (M
0
if
l

u
systematic
procedure
alternatives
by
using
the
concepts
of
fuzzy
)

M
=
{
1 method
2(12)
2V (M
1M1Changs
set
and
hierarchicalstructure
structureanalysis.
analysis. In this
paper,
) = hgt
(Mextent
M2analysis
) =method
1 analysis
M2 (d)
settheory
theory
and hierarchical
extent
and
alternatives
by using the concepts
of fuzzyIn this paper,2 Changs
)-(m
)
1
if
m
m
m11
l
-u
/(m
-u
-l
otherwise
1
if
m
1 extent
2
2 2
1 1
22
set theory
and
hierarchical
structure
analysis.
this paper,
Changs
analysis
method
1because
ifanalysis.
m2 ofIn
mthis
set
theory
and is
hierarchical
structure
(d)
1approach
M
hgt
(M
)
=
V
(M
(Chang,
1996)
is
utilizedbecause
the
steps
approach
are
easier
than
the
other
2are
1) = relatively
1 M
2than
1
if
m

m
M2
2
1
11 the
ifif this
m

m
(Chang,
1996)
utilized
steps
of
relatively
easier
the
other
m22 m
uu22
(M
M
M11)) =
= {{
11 2
00
ifif ll11
(M
In
this2 paper,
0 analysis
ifmethod
l1ofthis
u2 approach
(M
0easier than
if the
l1 other
u(13)

M1 )Changs
=
{) extent
(M22 are
={
M1 )relatively
(13)
(Chang,
1996)
isMutilized
because
the steps
2
0
if
l

u
(M

=
{
(13)
0
if
l

u
)
(M
)-(m
)
=
{

M
(13)
l
-u
/(m
-u
-l
otherwise
11
22
) otherwise
fuzzy
/(m
22techniques.
11
2)-(m
fuzzyAHP
AHP
techniques.
11-u222-u
22-u
11-l
11
1
if
m
m
l1 -u2l/(m
(Chang,
1996)
is utilized
because
the
steps
of
2 )-(m
1 -l2
1 ) otherwise
2
1
)-(m
)
l
-u
/(m
-u
-l
otherwise
1
2
2
2
1
1
fuzzy AHP techniques. ll11-u
)-(m
is M
the) ordinate
of0highestif intersection
point D betw
)-(m
) otherwise
-u
/(mthan
-u22the
-l11)where
otherwise
22/(m
22-u
11-l
this approach are relatively
easier
othif
l

u
(M2d
=
{

m
1
m
2 1 1 2
1
er fuzzy AHP techniques.
0
if the
l11 -l

u
(M2 MM
)={
) 2otherwise
/(m
-u
compare
and
M
we
need
both
values
V (M1M1
and
M
1
2highest
2 )-(m
1point
2l1, -u
where
ddis1is
the
ordinate
of2 highest
intersection
Dof
between
where
the
ordinate
ofof
intersection
where
d
is
the
ordinate
highest
intersection
point D
Db
where
d
is
the
ordinate
of
highest
intersection
point
)-(m
)
l
-u
/(m
-u
-l
otherwise
1
2
2
2
1
1
, x,,ordinate
xnof
an
set,
Assume
Xd
where X
intersection
point
D
between
gM1
and
gM2
(see
Fig.
1).
ToM2 ) and V (M
(see
Fig.
To
point
D=M
between
Assume
X=is
{x
,,3x,...,
,...,
x} xnbe
}nhighest
anobject
set,
andand
G =Gpoint
{g
gD
gand
be
a}
1 1
22x
1,{g
21,, g
n}both
(M
compare
M
need
thegoal
values
of V1).
Assume
=={xthe
{x
x,the
x3ordinate
,...,
}be
be
anobject
object
set,
g32,.......,
be
a set.
goal
set.
3ordinate
3,.......,
nand
1 and
2,, we
1 1).
where
d
of
highest
intersection
between

and
M2
(see
Fig.
d, 11gis
is2xx,.......,
the
of
highest
intersection
point
D
between
}M1
(see
Fig.
1). To
To
M1
M2
Assume
X
,
,
x
,...,
x
}
be
an
object
set,
and
G
=
{g
,
g
,
g
,.......,
g
be
a
goal
set.
2
3
n
1
2
3
n
and
G =where
{g1=
, g{x
g
}
be
a
goal
set.
Ac(M
compare
M,11Mand
and
M
we
need
both
the
values
ofVVM(M
compare
we
need
both
the
val-(Mof
compare
M
and
M
need
both
the
values

2
3
n
2,, ,we
2
11an
(M
)
[(M
)
V

M
,

,
M
=
V

M
and
(M
)
(M
).
1
2
k
1
2 )be
According
to
the
method
of
Changs
extent
analysis,
each
object
is
taken
and
extent
analysis
compare
M
and
M
,
we
need
both
the
values
of
V

M
and
V
1the
2
1
2
2
1
where
d
is
the
ordinate
of
highest
intersection
point
D
According
to
method
of
Changs
extent
analysis,
each
object
is
taken
and
extent
analysis
cording compare
to
the
method
of
Changs
extent
analy(M
)
(M
).
ues
of
and
M
and
M
,
we
need
both
the
values
of
V

M
and
V

M
(M
)
(M
).
compare
M
and
M
,
we
need
both
the
values
of
V

M
and
V

M
1
2
1
2
2
1
According to the method
of 2Changs extent analysis, each
object
is
extent
1
1 taken
2 and
2 intersection
1
where
d isMthe
highest
point(M
D between
[(M
V

,=Mof
Vanalysis
M1 ) and
M2 )
1 , iM
2,
k )(M
)ordinate
(M
sis,
eachgoal,
object
taken
and extent
analysis
for, , M Min
i and
1,
2,=3,
, object
k )
analysis
M
foreach
each
g i ,is
is
performed,
respectively.
Therefore,
m(M
extent
values
for
each
(M
)
[(M
)
(M
V

M
,
M
=
V

M
and

and
1M
(M
1
2
k
1
2
k)
compare
M
and
M
,
we
need
both
the
values
of
V
for
goal,
g
,
is
performed,
respectively.
Therefore,
m
extent
analysis
values
for
each
object
(M
)
[(M
)
(M
)
(M
)]
1
2
V

M
,
M
,

,
M
=
V

M
and

M
and

and

M
=
Step
3:
The
degree
of
possibility
for
a
convex
i
1
2
k
1
2
k
,
is
performed,
respectively.
Therefore,
m
extent
analysis
values
for
each
object
for
each
goal,
g
M1degree
and
M2of
we
both
the
of(M
V (M
2 )Mand
each goal, , is iperformed, respectively. There- StepVcompare
(M3:The
) need
[(M
The
M
M
, ,M
=
V

Mvalues
and

3:
possibility
for
fuzzy
num
1, M
1M
2) a
2),
k=
1a) convex
(M
i
1,
2,
3,

,
k
Min

Step
degree
of
possibility
for
a
convex
fuzzy
number
to
be
g
can be
obtained,
withvalues
the equation
(6)
(Chang,
1996):
fuzzy
number
(M
1, 2, 3,
, k ito be greater than convex num(1
1,
M
fore,
extent
analysis
for
each
object
i )3,1996):
can
obtained,
with(M
the
equation
(Chang,
i(6)
=
2,can
1996):
,ik=VMin
(14)
Min
MMin
canbe
be
obtained,
with
the
equation
(6)
(Chang,
i)
(M
)
[(M
)
(M
)

M
M
=
equation
M1byand
M2
(M
i,,=
1,
3,V
, kdefined
M,=M
2,
k 2,

k)
can
be
by
(14): (14):
numbers
(i
bers
can
be
defined
by
i )1,2,
1,2,
, k)
can
be
equation
MMi
i (i1=
be1obtained,
withmthe equation 6 (Chang, 1996): numbers
Assume
the
equation
(15)
asdefined
below:
2
(M
)
[(M
)
(M
V

M
,
M
,

,
M
=
V

M
and

M2 )
Step
3:
The
degree
of
possibility
for
a
convex
fuzzy
Step
3:
The
degree
of
possibility
for
a
convex
fuzzy
1
2
k
1
,
M
,,
M
,
i=1,2,3,,n
(6)
M1Step
equation
14:M ) toi =
gi
gi
gi
23:
m
of
possibility
for
a
convex
fuzzy
number
be
greater
than
k
convex
1
2 The degree
m
(M
1,
2,
3,

,
k
Min

(M
)
[(M
)
(M
V

M
,
M
,

,
M
=
V

M
and

M )
i
MgiStep
,,3:
Mgi
,, degree
i=1,2,3,,n
(6) (6)
,,
M
i=1,2,3,,n
MMgigi, ,M
(A ) fuzzy
1 equation
2(S S
kto
1 k
The
of
number
be
greater
than
gi
Step
3:
The
degree
of possibility
possibility(6)for
for aa convex
convex
fuzzy
number
to
be
greater
than
k convex
convex
gi
)=
Assume
the
(15)
as
below:
min
d
(Mas
[(M
) and
(M
)
V
=
M
,(i
MiV
,
V
M
M22(1
i(M
i ,iM
k)
1
2
k
1
)
=
1,
2,
3,

,
k
Min

M
j Assume the equation
(i
=
1,2,

,
k)
can
be
defined
by
equation
(1
numbers
M
=
1,2,

,
k)
can
be
defined
by
equation
numbers
M
Assume
the
equation
(15)
below:
i
(15) as below:
iequation
(j=1,
2,
3,,
m)
are
TFNs.
where
all the
(igi
Assume
the
(15)
as
below:
1,2,
,
k)
can
be
defined
by
equation
(14):
numbers
MM
(M
)
[(M
)
(M
)
Step
3:
The
degree
of
possibility
for
a
convex
fuzzy
number
Step
The
degree
of
possibility
for
a
convex
fuzzy
nu
V

M
,
M
,

,
M
=
V

M
and

M
and
jj =
)
(M
i
i
=
1,
2,
3,

,
k
Min

M
1
2
k
1
2

i (S S )
=
1,2,
,,k)
can
be
equation
numbers
M
(i2,
(j=1,
2,
3,,
m)
are
TFNs.
where
all
the
m)
are
TFNs.
whereall
all
the M
Mgi(j=1,
=3,,
1,2,

k)are
can
be defined
defined by
by
equation
(14):
numbers
min
dV (A
ii(i
where
the
2,
3,,
TFNs.
(M
= 1,
2, 3,
, k - 8M
Min
M(14):
M
i )=
ii, M
m)
i )V
gid(j=1,
(M
)kcan
[(M
)equation
(M(14):
M
,
M
,

=
V
and
M2(1)
(A
)
(S
)
(A
)
(S
)
=
min
V
(15)

S
k(A
d
=
min
V

S
1
2
k
1
(M
)
[(M
)
(M
)
(M
)]
i
i
k
V

M
,
M
,

,
M
=
V

M
and

M
and

and

M
=
i
i
(14)
(i
=
1,2,

,
k)
be
defined
by
numbers
M
)
(S
)
)
(M
d
=
min
V

S
1,
below:
, be
kk defined by
Min i
1
2 extent k
1 as following:
2MiM
The steps of Changs
analysis can be given
- 8 equation
k)3,as
can
(14
numbers
ii =
k, 2,
i = 1,2,
Assume
the
equation
(15)
i (i
The
steps
of
Changs
extent
analysis
can
be
For
k = 1,
2, equation
, n; k (15)
i. Then
the weight vector is given b
Thesteps
steps of
of Changs
Changs extent
analysis
can
bebe
given
as following:
The
extent
analysis
can
given
as
following:
Assume
the
as
below:
)
(M
i
=
1,
2,
3,

,
k
Min

M
i
(M Mi )
i = 1, 2, 3, , k
(14)
(A )
givenMin
as following:
min
V (Si(A
dAssume
(15)
S),k ) as below:
i = the
(Aequation
(A ))T
),
W
=
(d
d

.
,
d
For
k
=
1,
2,

,
n;
k

i.
Then
the

-- 88 -- is given
1
n weight vector
Assume
the
equation
(15)
as
below:
Forofk =
1, 2,synthetic
, n;
i.2,Then
weight
is,Vgiven
equation
(16):
)vector
(Ski (15)
=
min
d
2by
Sas
the
equation
15
i=
k
For
k k=1,
, n;the
k- 8
i.(A
Then
the
weight
vector
is the
given
by equation
(16): by
Step 1: The value
fuzzy
context
-Assume
Assume
the
equation
as)below:
below:
For
k
1,
2,

n;
i.
Then
weight
vector
is
given
-to
Step 1: The value of fuzzy synthetic context with respect
object
define
(7): T - 8 -88 i-th
-) =
min
V (S
dT(A
Sask )equation
(A is

with
respect
to
th
object
is
define
as
equation
7:
),) as
(d
d
. , d
(A
)=
dW
S),(15)
=
Step 1: The valueW
of fuzzy
context
to
is),
define
as
(7):
(A
(15) - 8 (AW
(A
(A
=
min
(A
1V
2S
nT)) (16)
(A
(A
the
T(S
d
with
. , ddrespect
= (dsynthetic
i (A
(S
Assume
d
min
V
1 ),as
2 ),
n ))
(Aobject
),
(A
(d
d
k equation
. , dasbelow:
), (A
(A
))
(d
=iith
.),to
dobject
(1
i
k)
-1=below:
Assume
(15)
1equation
n ))
Step 1:
The value
ofnfuzzy
synthetic
context
respect
th
is2
define
equation
(7):
1 ),with
2W
n
j the equation
j
For
k
=
1,
2,

,
n;
k
i.
Then
the
weight
vector is given
m
m
-1

(

(7)
S
=
M

[
M
]
(7)
where

=
1,
2,

,
)
are
n
elements.
i

j=1perform
j=1 jgi
j
gi
Summation of
theni=1fuzzy
Thenthe
the
weight
For
1,min
2, V, (S
n; ikSi.k )Then
weight
vector is given
m
d (Aki )==
m addition
Si Row),
= dm
[
M ] -1 operation of For
(7)
(AiM
) jgi=
j=1
i=1
min
V
(15)
T
n (Si j=1
m Skgi)j
(A
),
(A
),
(A
))
W
=
(d
d

.
,
d
For
k
=
1,
2,

,
n;
k

i.
Then
the
weight
vector is given

Si = j=1 Mm

[
M
]
(7)
1
2
n
vector
is
given
by
equation
16:
j
i=1
j=1
gi where
gi 2, , ) are n elements.
(
(Summation
= 1,
k =
2,
k(A
elements.
Tvector
where

=
1,
2,

, )
are
n the
For
=
1,
2,

,
n;

i.
Then
weight
vector
is given
For
1,

,
n;
k

i.
Then
the
weight
is given
by e
particular matrix
such equation
j=1

To
Mgi(8):
(Fuzzy
Summation
of
Row),
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
of

(
(Fuzzy
of
Row),
To obtain
obtain
where

=
1,
2,

,
)
are
n
elements.
(A
),
),
(A
))
W
=
(d
d

.
,
d

where ( = 1, 2, , ) are n elements.

(A1 ), (A2 ),
(An ))T (16)
W
=
(d
, d. , (A
dvectors
Step
4:(d
The
weight
perform the fuzzy
operation of extent
(Anormalized
(A
T
1 dd
n Tare obtained throu
=
(A),2),
(A
m m jaddition
),
W
. Then
(A
),addition
))
W
=
(d
d

. , d
1
2operation
n ))of
mj , m
(8)Row),
ToTo
obtain
MMgij (Fuzzy
Summation
of
Row),
perform
the
fuzzy
1
2 i.operation
nweight
m j=1
j 1,
obtain
(Fuzzy
Summation
of
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
of

For
k
=
1,
2,
,
n;
k

the
vector is give
j=1 uj ) extent
analysis
values
for
a
particular
matrix
such
equation
(8):
j=1
values
To obtain
M
(Fuzzy
Summation
of
Row),
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
of

gi
j
analysis
for
a
particular
matrix
such
For
k
=
2,

,
n;
k

i.
Then
the
weight
vector
is
given
by
equation
(16):
m
j=1
j=1giMgi (Fuzzy Summation of Row), perform the fuzzy
To obtain
addition
operation
of2,
, ) are
(
where

=
1,
n
elements.
using
equation
(17):
are
n
elements.
where

Step 4: The normalized weight vectors

are
obtained
through
normalization
asthrough
below
Step
The
normalized
vectors
are
obtained
thr
Step
4:4:
normalized
weight
are
obtained
equation
8:
(8):
(A

(A
Tprocess,
j analysis
extent
for
am
such
equation
(8):
m perform
mvalues
m
m
analysis
for
a particular
matrix
equation
(8):
extent
analysis
values
for
a particular
particular
matrix
such
equation
ummation of Row),
thevalues
fuzzy
addition
ofsuch

where
The
=
2,are
,2)
are
nvectors
elements.
=
(A
operation
matrix
T
), d
(Aobtained
),weight
Wweight
=
(d

. , d
Step
4:
The
normalized
vectors
through
(
1 1,
n )) normalization pr
analysis
values
for
ad
particular
matrix
such
equation
(8):

extent
(
l
,
,
u
)
(8)
MW
),
(A
),
(A
))
=
(d
(16)

.
,
d
j
j
j
j=1extent
j=1
j=1
j=1
1
2
n
gi
(normalized
where
The
=1,
1,
2,

, weight
)
are
nvectors
elements.
-7Step
are obj
using
equation
(17):
where4:equation

2,2,

, )
areare
n elements.
m
m
1 matrix such
j(8):m lm,m
(
using
(17):
j=j (
m
m
m

m
m
,m
uj )u,
(8)
M
using
equation
(17):
m
mj
m
m
mm
m u j)
articular
equation
((8)=
j

=
1,
,
)
n
elements.
j
j=1
j=1
j=1
gi M

- 7(17):
- m) where
=
(
l
,
m
(8)
M
=
(
l
,
,
)

j=1
=
(
l
,
,
u
)
(8)
M
j
j
j
(8)
j
j
j
j=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
gi
gi
using
equation
j
j
j
Mgi ] , perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
of
M
(j=1,
2,
j=1 gi
j=1
j=1
j=1 gi
tained
through
process,

(A ),normalization
(A ),
(A ))T as below
W =4:(dThe 1normalized
d 2 weight
. , d nvectors are obtained thro
Step
m
(8)
j=1 uj )
- 7 - using equation
17:
Step
4:
The
normalized
weight
vectors are obtained thr
(
where

=
1,
2,

,
)
are n elements.
1

1
Summation of Column)
where n (nW
2,
are
1,
1 ,j)
(An elements.
(A ))T
j m
j jThe
where
W
is
a
non-fuzzy
number.
of M
The
m)
j(A vectors
T T are (17)
n=
Step
4:
normalized
weight
obtained
through
using
equation
(17):
j , (A
),
),
=
(d
d

.
,
d
m
Step
4:
normalized
weight
vectors
are obtained
thr
m
]
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
(j=1,
2,
AndAnd
to
obtain
[i=1
M
(A
),
(A
),
))

1
2
n
1
W
d

.
,
d
=
(d

And
to
obtain
[
M
]
,
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
of
M
(j=1,

j=1
to
obtain
[
M
]
,
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
of
M
(j=1,
2,
m)
gi
(17)
2 j ), weight
n vectors
i=1
(A1 1normalized
), d
(A
))2, m)
i=1
gi
gi
j perform
. ,2,
d (A
(d
W =4:equation
gi
gi
1
nj=1gi j=1
m
Step
The
are
obtained
thr(
,
the
fuzzy
to obtain
2
n

T
using
(17):

n
n AndAnd
to
obtain
[
M
]
,
perform
the
fuzzy
addition
operation
of
M
(j=1,
m)
j
j
1
n
m
(A
),
(A
),
(A
))
=
(d
d

.
,
d
W
i=1
j=1
gi
gi
j
)
]i=1, perform

1
2
n
(9)
mi , i=1
u
(Summation
]2,
perform
the fuzzywhere
addition
And
to
obtain
[
M
using
equation
(17):
i values
values
such
equation
(9):
(Summation
Column)
theaddition
fuzzy
addition
operation
of
M
(j=1,
m)
where
W
is gia of
non-fuzzy
number.
i=1
j=1
such
equation
(9):
of,Column)
gi (j=1, 2, m)
operation
of
2,
m) values
using
equation
(17):of Mnumber.
W
isoperation
a anon-fuzzy
gi (j=1,
where
W
is
non-fuzzy
number.
values
such
equation
(9):
(Summation
of
Column)
where
W
is
a
non-fuzzy
number.
using
equation
(17):
j
m
values
equation
(9):
Step
4:Determination
The
normalized
weight vectors
arebelow
obtained
j (
m such
n
nu
such
equation
9:ni=1
(Summation
of
Column)
where
isColumn)
a non-fuzzy
number.
i ni=1
)ui ) Wof
ni=1
ni=1
=gi
lni=1
, lini=1
mi m
, (Summation
(9)
M
Step
4:
The
normalized
weight
vectors
are
obtained
through
normalization
as

Tof final

M
=
,
,
(9)
mmation of Column)
i
i
j=1
Step
5:
of
alternatives
weight,
as thr
be
gi
j=1
i=1
i=1
values suchj equation (9): (Summation of Column) W = (d (A1 ), d (A2 ), . , d (Aprocess,
n )) of final
n
m
n
n
n
Step
5:
Determination
of
alternatives
j

T
n
m
n l , n m ,
n

(
)
n
=
u
(9)
M

T
j=1equation
i=1
(A11),),dd(17):
(A
= ((17):
m i, i=1
u ) i (9)
(9)
W
=
(d(A

,(A
d n(A
using
equation
ili , (9)
i=1i=1
j=1
giM
2 ),
n )) T
(A
))equation
W

.alternatives
, d. using
1 mi , i=1 ui )
j gi Stepi=1
2 ),
ni=1
ni=1 i
ni=1
5: Determination
ofi alternatives
of =
final
below
as
(A
weight,
asweight,
using
equation
18:
Step
5:(d
Determination
of
of final(18):
weight, as belo
where
W
isbelow
a1non-fuzzy
number.
ni=1 using
m
(9)
(A
),
(A
),
d

.
,
d
W
=
(d
j=1 Mgi = (i=1 li , i=1 mi , i=1 ui )
2
n ))T of final weight, as

Step
5:
Determination
of
alternatives
(A
),
(A
),
(A
))
W
=
(d
d

.
,
d
And
then
compute
the
inverse
of
the
vector
in
1
2 number.
n below using equation
where
W
is
a
non-fuzzy
number.
where
W
is
a
non-fuzzy
of1 =
alternatives
of
final
weight,
as
rse of the vector in equation (10) such that: Step 5: DeterminationA
(A
C1 to GOAL) + (A1 to C2 C2 to GOA
compute
inverse
of the
vector
in equation
(10)
such
that:
AndAnd
thenthen
compute
the the
inverse
of the
vector
in equation
(10)
such
that:
where W1 to
is aC1non-fuzzy
number.
equation
10
such
that:

(A ), number.
(A ))T
where
W
is
a
non-fuzzy
1
nmj 1
(A to
(A
T
(A
),
W
=
(d
d

.+, dC(A
n
(A
(A
j (A
=
C

C
to
GOAL)
+
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
A
1
2
nto
(A
n
n
n
n
),
),
))
C
to
GOAL)
+

+
to
to
GOAL)
(A
(AC1C
=
(d
d

.
,
d
(17)
W
=
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
to
C
C2 to GOAL
n
m
n
n
n
A
1 i=1
1i 2
1 m
1ni=1
1 5: Determination
2 (10)
2
)
i=1

(10)
m
,[1/
l
3
1
n+1
n3

1
1
1
1
1
2 weight,
M
(10)
]
=(1/
u
,
1/
,
1/
l
ofuthe
vector
in equation
(10)
such
that:
i=1

)
[ii=1
M
]
=(1/
,
1/
m
,
1/
l
u
i , 1/
i
(10)
i
i
=1
i=1
Step
of
alternatives
of
final
as b
j=1
i=1
j=1 gi gi
i=1 i
i=1 i
And
then computei=1
thei inverse
of the vector
in equation A
(10)
such
that:
(A
(A
=
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
+
to
C

C
to
G
Step
5:
Determination
of
alternatives
of
final
weight,
as
below
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Step
5:
Determination
of
alternatives
of
final
weight,

(18)
where
Wsuch
is+a+(A
non-fuzzy
number.
And
compute
of
the(A
equation
(10)
that:
(A
=
to1 C
C1 (18)
to C

Cn2 to
GOAL)
+ (A1 to C3 as

A+
C1
to inverse
GOAL)

+vector
to1inC
Cto
to
GOAL)
n then
(A
C
to

+
to

C
to
GOAL)
3the
n
n3 GOAL)
1
1
1
2
where
W
is
a
non-fuzzy
number.
1
n
)

(10)
ui , 1/ ni=1 mi , 1/Step
l
i
i=1
And then
computedegree
the inverse
the nvector inofequation
(10)5:such
that:
of ofpossibility
Step
Determination
of alternatives of final weight, as
n 2: mThej
n
) Step
ni=1ofuiof
to
+ asas
+ (A
to Cn Cof
GOAL)
[
M
(10)
]of of
=(1/
m,iu2,, 1/
of
final
weight, as
(l
(lC
)
)Determination
1
Step
2:The
degree
possibility
M=2(l
=i=1
u)2
,3m
u GOAL)

M1li=(l
isdefined
defined
1alternatives
n to
j=1
i=1
2 , 2m
,m
, 1m
u,5:
M
isis
Step
2:i=1
The
degree
possibility
M, 1/
(18)
2 to
2n
2 de1 =
1
1 ,1to
1 )1n
j gi1
(A
(18)
Where
the
number
of
criteria.
C
GOAL)
+

+
C

C
to
GOAL)
n
m
n
n
is
3
1
n
n
)
)
(l
(l
ossibility of[
Mi=1

M
is
defined
as
=
,
m
,
u
=
,
m
,
u

)
j
M
]
=(1/
u
,
1/
m
,
1/
l
(10)
2n
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
(A
(A
m
n
n
n
=
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
+
to
C
C2 to G
A
i
i
i
j=1
i=1
i=1
i=1
gi
1
1
1
1
1
2
equation
(11):
j=1

[m
M ] ,=(1/
ui , 1/asi=1 mi , 1/ i=1 li(18)
(10)
+ (A1 to C2 C
A)1 = (A1 to C1 C1 to GOAL)
equation
i=1defined
2 to GOAL)
(l2 , i=1
) is
sibility of M2 = fined
, u(11):
M1gi= (l
is
(A
(A
Where
the
number
of
criteria.
2as
2)
1 m1 , u1n
equation
11:
=
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
+
to
C

C2 toasG
A
Where
n
is
the
number
of
criteria.
Where
n
is
the
number
of
criteria.
Step
5:
Determination
of
alternatives
of
final
weight,
1
1
1
1
1
2
(18)
Step 5: Determination of alternatives of final weight,
as below
using
equation
(18):
(A
CAC3)13 to
GOAL)
+m

+C
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
(A
(A
=
to
C

to
GOAL)
+
to
C

C to G
1
n
n
(A
to
GOAL)
+

+
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
1
1
1
1
2
(l
(l
)
Step 2: The degree
of
possibility
of
M
=
,
m
,
u
=
,
,
u

M
is
defined
as
1ofGOAL)
n
n (A to C C 2 to G
2
2
2 A
2 = (A
1n is
1C number
1 1C to
Where
the
criteria.
sup
to
+
sup
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
(x),
(y))]
(A
V
(M2

M1)
=
[min
(
(11)

C
to
GOAL)
+

+
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
APPLICATION
OF
FUZZY
AHP
APPROACH
FOR
S
M1
M2
yx (
Where n is the number of3 criteria.
1
n
n
(11)
V (M2 M1) = yx[min
M1 (x), M2 (y))]
(18)
(A
equation
(11):
C
to
GOAL)
+

+
to
C

C
to
GOAL)
(18)
(l
)
(l
)
Step
2:
The
degree
of
possibility
of
M
=
,
m
,
u

M
=
,
m
,
u
is
defined
as
3
1
n
n
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
)
)
(l
(l
M1 = +FOR
as to GOAL)FOR SE
u2toGOAL)
,
m+
u(A
Step 2: The degree
of possibility
M2 = AHP
2 , m2APPLICATION
1 ,FUZZY
1 1istodefined
APPLICATION
OFofFUZZY
SELECTING
C,APPROACH
CnIN

CPROPER
AHP
3
n 1 to C
ROADHEADING
MACHINE
TABAS
COAL
(18)
(A
= (A
to C11 OF

C(A
totoGOAL)
+APPROACH
A
((x),
M2 (y))] A1 = (A1 to
(11)(A1 to
(11)
M2 (y))]
1 C
1GOAL)
11
2 CMINE
2 to G
M1
M1 (x),
C

C
to
GOAL)
+
C

to
+
C

1
1
2
2
3
Where
is
the
number
of
criteria.
Where
n
the
number
of
criteria.
And
can
be
equivalently
expresses
as
equations
(12-13):
(18)
equation
(11):
equation
(11): ROADHEADING
And
can be equivalently
expresses as equations (12-13):
APPLICATION
AHP
FOR
MACHINE IN ROADHEADING
TABASn COAL
MINE
MACHINE
IN
TABAS
COAL MINE
(18)
Where
is the+
number
of1criteria.
(A
C3 to GOAL)
OF
+ FUZZY
to CFOR
CAPPROACH
APPLICATION
FUZZY
AHP
APPROACH
n SELECTING
n to GOAL) PRO
C to GOAL) sup
+ + (A
to C C to OF
GOAL)

276

Yerbilimleri

Figure 1. The intersection between M1 and M2 (Chang, 1996)

ekil 1. M1 ve M2deki kesiim (Chang, 1996)

APPLICATION OF FUZZY AHP APPROACH

FOR SELECTING PROPER ROADHEADING
MACHINE IN TABAS COAL MINE
The selection process of suitable miner (roadheader) gets started by evaluating given ore
deposit, rock formation properties and mining method data. Theselection criteria include
geotechnical characteristics of rock formations
(C1), machine (roadheader) size (C2), machine
performance (C3), machine flexibility (C4), and
total costs (C5). At the first stage, a comprehensive questionnaire in accordance with the
above mentioned criteria is designed and distributed among decision makers from various
areas to qualify and evaluate the dominant factors affecting on selection process. Then, FAHP
approach is used to determine the weighs of
main criteria. Following to this, the major roadheader type is selected based on experts opinions. Ranking of considered mining machine for
Tabas coal mine is finally carried out utilizing
AHP method.
Here, it should be stated that according to
working condition and mining method (particularly longwall and room-and-pillar mining methods) and possibly conventional mining machine
(here, as roadheaders with medium weight) to
excavate coal and coal measure rocks in Tabas
deposit, there are only 3 appropriate medium-duty roadheaders for the mine including
DOSCO MD1100, KOPEYSK KP21, and WIRTH

T2.11roadheaders.Table 1 indicates the basic

specifications of these roadheaders (Dosco Ltd,
2008; Kopeysk machine-building plant, 2014;
AkerSolutions, 2014).The algorithm of FAHP
approach is considered as steps presented
and sammarised in the following sections.
Making Hierarchical Structure of the Problem
The criteria and machine alternatives can be
ruled as a hierarchical structure of the problem,
shown in Fig. 2.
Making Comparison Dual Matrix
Decision-makers prepared questionnaires
forms and then with division against other importance carry out pair-wise comparison. Decision-makers use the linguistic variables, to
evaluate the ratings of alternatives with respect
to each criterion and they converted into triangular fuzzy numbers. Among the various shapes
of fuzzy number, triangular fuzzy number (TFN)
is the most popular one; hence, these TFNs
have been used through the analyses. Fuzzy
numbers are defined arbitrarily as very low [0, 1,
3], low [1,3,5], medium [3,5,7], high [5,7,9], very
high [7,9,10] that are shown in Table 2.
Then, a comprehensive pair-wise comparison
matrix is built. One of these pair-wise comparisons with respect to C5 (machine total costs) is
shown below in Table 3 as an example.

Ebrahimabadi

277

Table 1. Typical specifications of available roadheaders

Tablo 1. Uygun olan tnel ama makinalarnn tipik zellikleri
Technical data/
Roadheaders

DOSCO MD1100

KOPEYSK KP21

WIRTH T2.11

Machine weight (Base

machine)

34 tons

46 tons

85 tons

Total power (Standard

machine)

From 157 kW

110 kW

439 kW

82 kW axial, 112 kW
transverse

60 kW

300 kW

Machine length

8060 mm

12500 mm

12780 mm

Machine width

3000 mm

2100 mm

3050 mm

Machine height

1700 mm

4500 mm

3780 mm

Power on cutting boom

(Standard machine)

Figure 2. Hierarchical structure of problem

ekil 2. Problemin hiyerarik yaps

Determination of Any Matrix Relative Weight

equations 13,14, as seen in Tables 4 and 5.

After making fuzzy pair-wise comparison matrix

and according to the FAHP method, synthesis
values must firstly be determined. From Table
3, according to extent analysis synthesis values with respect to cost criterion (C5), for example, are calculated like in equation 6: S1=
0.049, 0.072, 0.123, S2=0.274, 0.589, 1.204,
S3=0.164, 0.339, 0.723.

After the normalization of these values, priority

weights respect to cost criterion are calculated
in Table 5.

These fuzzy values are compared by using

equation 12, and next values are obtained. Then
priority weights (Min) are calculated by using

After determining the priority weights of the criteria, the priority of the alternatives will be determined for each criterion. From the pair-wise
comparisons matrixes based on decision-makers opinion for three alternatives, evaluation
matrixes are also formed. Then, priority weights
of alternatives for each criterion are determined
by making the same calculation.

278

Yerbilimleri

Table 2. Preference values for the questionnaires

Tablo 2. Anketlerdeki tercih deerleri
Quality Judge

Fuzzy Numbers

Very low

0,1,3

low

1,3,5

Average

3,5,7

High

5,7,9

Extreme

7,9,10

Table 3. The alternatives fuzzy dual comparison matrix toward together, with respect to C5
Tablo 3. C5e gre seenekler arasnda karlkl karlatrma matrisi
C5

WIRTH T2.11

KOPEYSK KP21

DOSCO MD1100

WIRTH T2.11

1,1,1

0.111,0.142,0.2

0.142,0.2,0.333

KOPEYSK KP21

5,7,9

1,1,1

1,3,5

DOSCO MD1100

3,5,7

0.2,0.333,1

1,1,1

Table 4. The degree of possibility in Table 3

Tablo 4. Tablo 3teki olaslk derecesi
V(s1>=s2)=

0.000

v(s1>=s3)=

0.000

V(s2>=s1)=

1.000

V(s2>=s3)=

1.000

V(s3>=s1)=

1.000

V(s3>=s2)=

0.640

Determination of Alternatives Final Weight

(Selection of Roadheading Machine)
In the last part, final weights of alternatives are
determined by conflation of scores. By using of
equation 16, alternative DOSCO MD1100 roadheader which has the highest priority weight
is selected as an appropriate roadheader for
Tabas coal mine. The ranking order of the alternatives with fuzzy AHP method is DOSCO
MD1100>KOPEYSK KP21>WIRTH T2.11 that
are shown in Fig. 3.
DISCUSSION
Fuzzy AHP approach is an appropriate method
for selecting coal mining machinery or other
multi-criteria decision-making problems. However, this method has some limitations as mentioned below:

Through fuzzy AHP, the decision-maker is

only asked to give judgments about either the
relative importance of one criterion against another or its preference of one alterative on one
criterion against another. However, when the
number of alternatives and criteria grows, the
pair-wise comparison process becomes cumbersome, and the risk of inconsistencies grows.
In the extent analysis of fuzzy AHP, the priority
weights of criterion or alternative can be equal
to zero. In this situation, we do not take this
criterion or alternative into consideration. This
is the one of the disadvantages of this method.
Companies should choose the appropriate
method for their problem according to the
situation and the structure of the problem they
have. In future studies, other modern multi-criteria methods such as Electre and Paprika can
be used to handle machine selection process.

in Table 5.

After the normalization of these values, priority weights respect to cost criterion are calculated
in Table 5.

Ebrahimabadi
Table 5 Un-normalized weight and normalized
weight respect to cost criterion
Table 5 Un-normalized weight and normalized weight respect to cost criterion

Tablo
5. Maliyetweight
kriterine
dayal normalize
ve normalize
Table
5. Un-normalized
and normalized
weight respectedilmemi
to cost criterion
Tablo 5. Maliyet kriterine dayal normalize edilmemi ve normalize edilmi arlk
Tablo 5. Maliyet kriterine dayal normalize edilmemi ve normalize edilmi arlk

edilmi arlk

())
(

Minimum

normalized

0.000

0.000
0.000
1.000

0.000
0.609

0.000
0.000

0.391

0.609

Minimum
Minimum

1.000

0.640
1.000

279

normalized
normalized

0.640
Sum=
1.640

0.609

0.391

0.640

0.391

Sum= 1.640

Sum= 1.640

After determining the priority weights of the criteria, the priority of the alternatives will be
determined for each criterion. From the pair-wise comparisons matrixes based on decisionmakers' opinion for three alternatives, evaluation matrixes are also formed. Then, priority

After weights
determining
the priority
weights
of the criteria,
priority
of the alternatives will be
of alternatives
for each criterion
are determined
by making the
the same
calculation.
determined
for each
criterion.Final
From
the(Selection
pair-wise
comparisons
matrixes based on decisionDetermination
of Alternatives
Weight
of Roadheading
Machine)
makers' opinion for three alternatives, evaluation matrixes are also formed. Then, priority
weights of alternatives for each criterion are determined by making the same calculation.
- 12 -

Determination of Alternatives Final Weight (Selection of Roadheading Machine)

Figure 3. Priority of roadheaders for Tabas coal mine using

- 12 - FAHP approach
ekil 3. FAHP yaklam kullanlarak Tabas kmr madeni iin roadheaderlarn nemi

CONCLUSIONS
The selection of optimum roadheading machine
(roadheader) is one of crucial issues in underground mining methods such as longwall and
room-and-pillar mining and plays a major role
in mining projects from both technical and
economic point of view. Hence, the convenient roadheading machine for each mine should
appropriately be chosen from among relevant
roadheader alternatives. In this respect, some
parameters such as geological and geotechnical properties of ore deposit and its surrounded
strata (hangingwall and footwall), economic and
technical parameters, and operational factors
should be taken into account. The aim of this
research work is to select proper roadheader
for Tabas coal mine of Iran using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) approach.
FAHP is a multi-criteria decision making method which can be successfully used to rank alternative roadheading machines based on a set

of criteria. In fuzzy AHP, decision-makers made

pair-wise comparisons for the criteria and alternatives under each criterion. Then these comparisons integrated and decision-makers pairwise comparison values are transformed into
triangular fuzzy numbers. The priority weights
of criteria and alternatives are determined by
Chang extent analysis. According to the combination of the priority weights of criteria and
alternatives, the best alternative is determined.
According to the fuzzy AHP, the appropriate roadheader for Tabas coal mine found as
DOSCO MD1100 roadheader and the ranking
order of the alternatives is DOSCO MD1100,
KOPEYSK KP21 and WIRTH T2.11 roadheaders, respectively.
REFERENCES
Acaroglu, O., Ergin, H., and Eskikaya, S., 2006.
Analytical hierarchy process for selection of roadheaders. Journal of the South

280

Yerbilimleri

Alpay, S., and Yavuz, M., 2009. Underground

mining method selection by decision
making tools. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 24, 173-184.

Ebrahimabadi, A., Goshtasbi, K., Shahriar, K.,

and Cheraghi Seifabad, M., 2011a. A
model to predict the performance of
roadheaders based on rock mass brittleness index. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
(SAIMM), 111(5), 355-364.

Ataei, M., Jamshidi, M., Sereshki, F. and Jalali,

S. M. E., 2008. Mining method selection
by AHP approach. Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 741-749.

Ebrahimabadi, A., Goshtasbi, K., Shahriar, K.,

and Cheraghi Seifabad, M., 2011b. Predictive models for roadheaders cutting
performance in coal measure rocks.
Yerbilimleri, 32(2), 89-104.

Aydogan, E. K., 2011. Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms
using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38, 39923998.

Ebrahimabadi, A., Goshtasbi, K., Shahriar, K.,

and Cheraghi Seifabad, M., 2012. A
universal model to predict roadheaders
cutting performance. Archives of Mining Sciences, 57(4), 1015-1026.

African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM), 106, 569-575.

AkerSolutions, 2014. www.AkerSolutions.com

Bitarafan, M. R. and Ataei, M., 2004. Mining

method selection by multiple criteria
decision making tools. Journal of the
South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 104 (9), 493-498.
Boender, C.G.E., de grann, J. G., and Lootsma,
F. A., 1989. Multicriteria decision analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparison.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 29 (2), 133143.
Bojadziev, G., and Bojadziev, M., 1998. Fuzzy
Sets and Fuzzy Logic Applications,
World Scientific, Singapore, p. 300.
Buckley, J., 1985. Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis.
Fuzzy Sets Systems, 17, 233-247.
Chang, D. Y., 1992. Extent analysis and synthetic decision, Optimisation Techniques
and Applications, 1, World Scientific,
Singapore, 352 p.
Chang, D. Y., 1996. Applications of the extent
analysis method on Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operation Research,
95, 649-655.
Deng, H., 1999. Multicriteria analysis with Fuzzy
pair-wise comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reason, 21, 215231.
DOSCO Overseas Engineering Ltd, 2008. Newark Nottinghamshire, England, www.
dosco.co.uk.

Ertugrul, I., and Tus, A., 2007. Interactive Fuzzy

linear programming and an application
sample at a mine firm. Fuzzy Optimization Decision Making, 6, 29-49.
Ertugrul, I., 2011. Fuzzy group decision making
for the selection of facility location. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(6),725740.
Feizizadeh, B., Shadman Roodposhti, M., Jankowski, P., and Blaschke, T., 2014. A
GIS-based extended fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation for landslide susceptivity
maping. Computer and Geosciences,
73,208-221.
Hamrin, H., 1986. Guide to underground mining
methods and applications, Atlas Copco., Stockholm.
Hartman, H. L. 1992. Selection procedure, SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, Ed.,
Hartman, H. L., 2nd ed., Society for Mining Engineering, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc, chap. 23.4,2090-2106.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., and Ulukan, Z., 2003.
Multi-criteria supplier selection using
Fuzzy AHP. Logistic Information Management, 16(6),382-394.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., and Ruan, D., 2004.
Multi-attribute comparison of catering
service companies using fuzzy AHP:
the case of Turkey. International of Production Economics, 87,171-184.

Ebrahimabadi

281

Kahraman, C., 2008. Multi-criteria decision making methods and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy
Multi-Criteri Decision Making, Springer
Science& Business Media, LLC, 16,118.

Tutmez, B., and Kaymak, U., 2008. Fuzzy optimization of slab production from mechanical stone properties. Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 37(1),7176.

Klir, G. J., and Yuan, B., 1995. Fuzzy Sets and

Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications,
Prentice Hall.

Vahdani, B., and Hadipour, H., 2010. Extention

of the ELECTRE method based on interval-valued fuzzy set. Soft Computing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-0100563-5.

Kopeysk Machine-building Plant, 2014. www.

kopemash.ru
Oguzitimur, S., 2011. Why fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for transport
problems? In: European Regional Science Association ERSA Conference
Papers, Vienna, Austria, ersa11, 438.
Rostami, J., Ozdemir, L., and Neil, D.M., 1994.
Performance prediction: a key issue in
mechanical hard rock mining. Mining
Engineering, 1263-1267.
Saaty, T. L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tutmez, B., and Tercan, A. E., 2007. Spatial estimation of some mechanical properties of rocks by fuzzy modelling. Computers and Geotechnics, 34(1),10-18.
DOI:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.09.005.

Vaida, O. S., and Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic Hierarchy Process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operation
Research, 169,1-29.
Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., and Pedrcyz, W., 1983.
A Fuzzy extension of Saatys priority
theory. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 11,229241.
Yazdani-Chamzini, A., and Yakhchali, S. H.,
2012. Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision
making methods. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 30,194204.
Zadeh, L. A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information
Control, 8,338-353.