PL EN
 
PL EN
Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
Editorial Team
Reviewers
Reviewing procedure
2024 vol. 31
Stats
CC BY-NC 3.0 Poland
Get citation
Selecting a mining warehouse location
Stojance Mijalkovski 1,2
,
 
Kemajl Zeqiri 3
,
 
Dejan Mirakovski 2
,
 
Daniela Mijalkovska 2
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
professor, North Macedonia
 
2
Faculty of Natural and Technical Sciences, Goce Delcev University, North Macedonia
 
3
Faculty of Geosciences, Isa Boletini University, Kosovo
 
 
Corresponding author
Stojance Mijalkovski   

professor, North Macedonia
 
 
Mining Science 2024;31:231-247
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37190/msc243113
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (48)
 
KEYWORDS
warehouse
location
multi-criteria decision-making methods
 
TOPICS
Application of fundamental science to mining
Technology of deposit excavation in underground and strip mining
Mine engineering and construction, underground construction
 
ABSTRACT
Choosing the optimal location for building a new or renovating an existing mining warehouse is of great importance, especially when it comes to a company that has multiple mines in different locations and needs to build one main mining warehouse. Multi-criteria decision-making finds wide application in solving many problems in mining, such as selecting the location of a main mining warehouse. When multi-criteria decision-making is applied to solve a problem, a larger number of criteria are taken into account that affect the alternatives differently, and the optimal alternative is chosen based on them. In this paper, a methodology for optimal selection of the location of the main mining warehouse will be developed using seven multi-criteria decision-making methods. After the problem has been solved using all seven methods, the resulting rankings will be compared and the optimal location of the main mining warehouse will be selected.
REFERENCES (48)
1.
AGGARWAL A., CHOUDHARY C., MEHROTRA D., 2018, Evaluation of smartphones in Indian market using EDAS, International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science (ICCIDS 2018), ScienceDirect, 132, 236–243.
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
ALKARADAGHI K., ALI S.S., AL-ANSARI N., LAUE J., 2020, Landfill Site Selection Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making AHP and SAW Methods: A Case Study in Sulaimaniyah Gov-ernorate, Iraq, Engineering, 12, 254–268, https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.20....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
ARUNYANART S., SUREEYATANAPAS P., PONHAN K., SESSOMBOON W., NIYAMOSOTH T., 2021, International location selection for production fragmentation, Expert Systems with Appli-cations, 171, 114564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
BENAYOUN R., ROY B., SUSSMAN N., 1966, ELECTRE: Une m´ethode pour guider le choix en présence de points de vue multiples, Report, SEMA-METRA International, Direction Scientifique.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
BOGDANOVIC D., NIKOLIC D., ILIC I., 2012, Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method, Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 84 (1), 219–233.
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
BRANS J., 1982, L’ingénièrie de la décision; Elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. La méthode PROMETHEE, Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 183–214.
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
BRANS J., VINCKE P., MARESCHAL B., 1986, How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method, European Journal of Operational Research, 24 (2), 228–238.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
BRANS J.P., VINCKE P., 1985, A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making), Management Science, 31 (6), 647–656.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
CHAKRABORTY R., RAY A., DAN P.K., 2013, Multi criteria decision making methods for location selection of distribution centers, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 4, 491–504.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
CHEN C.T., 2000, Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114 (1), 1–9.
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
CHENG E.W.L., LI H., 2004, Exploring quantitative methods for project location selection, Building and Environment, 39 (12), 1467–1476.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
EFE B., EFE Ö.F., KURT M., 2017, An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy set and mathematical program-ming approach for an occupational health and safety policy, Gazi University Journal of Science, 30 (2), 73–95.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
EFE B., YERLIKAYA M.A., EFE Ö.F., 2020a, Mobile phone selection based on a novel quality function deployment approach, Soft Comput., 24, 15447–15461.
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
EFE Ö. F., 2020b, Hybrid Multi-Criteria Models: Joint Health and Safety Unit Selection on Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Management, ed. by Ab-hishek Behl, IGI Global, pp. 62–84.
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
GAO Z., LIANG R.Y., XUAN T., 2019, VIKOR method for ranking concrete bridge repair projects with target-based criteria, Results in Engineering, 3 (1), 1–9.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
GHORABAEE M.K., ZAVADSKAS E.K., AMIRI M., TURSKIS Z., 2016, Extended EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making: An application to supplier selection, International Journal of Computers Communications and Control, 11 (3), 358–371.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
HWANG C.L., YOON K., 1981, Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey. Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series. Vol. 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
MARGANA R.R., NURAZIS Y.R., PRIMA M.R., WINEKA F., MARIZA T., 2021, Determination of distribution center location in the Xyz small and medium enterprise (Sme) using center of gravity method, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12 (11), 1462–1469.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
MIJALKOVSKI S., EFE F.O., DESPODOV Z., MIRAKOVSKI D., MIJALKOVSKA D., 2022, Un-derground mining method selection with the application of TOPSIS method, GeoScience Engi-neering, 68 (2), 125–133.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
MIJALKOVSKI S., EFE F.O., ZEQIRI K., 2023, Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for the Underground Mining Method Selection, Chapter 3, In: Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption and Production for Greener Economies, IGI GLOBAL, Pennsylvania, pp. 42–57.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
MIJALKOVSKI S., PELTECHKI D., DESPODOV Z., MIRAKOVSKI D., ADJISKI V., DONEVA N., 2023b, Application of the FUZZY TOPSIS method for selecting an underground mining method, Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 28 (2), 465–478.
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
MIJALKOVSKI S., PELTECHKI D., ZEQIRI K., KORTNIK J., MIRAKOVSKI D., 2020, Risk As-sessment at Workplace in Underground Lead and Zinc Mine with Application of Fuzzy Topsis Method, Journal of the Institute of Electronics and Computer, 2, 121–141.
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
MIJALKOVSKI S., PELTECKI D., DESPODOV Z., MIRAKOVSKI D., ADJISKI V., DONEVA N., 2021, Methodology for underground mining method selection, Mining Science, 28 (1), 201–216.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
MIJALKOVSKI S., STEFANOV V., MIRAKOVSKI D., 2024a, Application of the TOPSIS method for selecting the location of the main warehouse, Transport and Logistics: The International Journal, 24 (56), 51–58.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
MIJALKOVSKI S., STEFANOV V., MIRAKOVSKI D., 2024b, Selection of the location of the main warehouse using the EDAS method, Natural Resources and Technology, 18 (1), 32–38.
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
MIJALKOVSKI S., STEFANOV V., MIRAKOVSKI D., 2024c, Application of the VIKOR method for solving problems in logistics, Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges, 15 (1), 1–9.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
MULIA F., 2018, Company location selection in digital technology era, does it still matter?, MANNERS, 1 (2), 85–89.
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
NOURALI H., NOURALI S., ATAEI M., IMANIPOUR N., 2012, A hierarchical preference voting system for mining method selection problem, Archives of Mining Sciences, 57 (4), 925–938.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
OPRICOVIC S., TZENG G.H., 2004, Compromise solution by MCDM mehods: A comparative analy-sis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156 (2), 445–455.
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
PARIDA P.K., 2019, A general view of TOPSIS method involving multi-attribute decision making problems, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), 9 (2), 3205–3214.
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
RANGELOVIC M., 2016. Models for optimization of industrial location decision making in relation to local economic development, Doctoral dissertation (unpublished), Pages: 163.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
ROY B., 1968, Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (La methode ELECTRE), Revue Francaise D Informatique de Recherche Operationnelle, Annee, 2, No. 8, 57–75.
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
SAATY T., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
SAATY T.L., 2008, The Analytic Network Process, Iranian Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 1,.
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
No. 1, 1–27.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
SAATY T.L., VARGAS L.G., 2001, Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, International series in operations research and management science, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, Vol. 34.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
ŞAHIN M., 2021, Location selection by multi-criteria decision-making methods based on objective and subjective weightings, Knowledge and Information Systems, 63, 1991–2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/.
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
s10115-021-01588-y.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
SHAIKH S.A., MEMON M., KIM K.S., 2021, A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Ideal Business Location Identification, Applied Sciences, 11 (11), 4983, 1–23.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
STEFANOV V., 2024. Selection of the location of the warehouse of spare parts and consumables for.
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
a company with dispersed locations, Master’s thesis (unpublished), p. 104.
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
SYAM A., ARIFIN M., PURBA H.H., 2018, Determining the optimal location of central spare part warehouse for the leading taxi company in Indonesia, International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering and Technology (IJSRET), 7 (12), 873–878.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
TURCKSIN L., BERNARDINI A., MACHARIS C., 2011, A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 20, 954–965.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
WANG Y., TAO S., CHEN X., HUANG F., XU X., LIU X, LIU Y., LIU L., 2022, Method multi-criteria decision-making method for site selection analysis and evaluation of urban integrated en-ergy stations based on geographic information system, Renewable Energy, 194, 273–292.
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
YANG J., LEE H., 1997, An AHP decision model for facility location selection, Facilities, 15 (9/10), 241–254.
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
YAP J.Y.L., HO C.C., TING C.-Y., 2019, A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision-making methods in site selection problems, Built Environment Project and Asset Man-agement,.
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
YOUSEFI H., MOTLAGH S.G., MONTAZERI M., 2022, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Wind Farm Site-Selection Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study of Semnan Province, Iran, Sustainability, 2022, 14 (13), 7640, 1–27, https://doi.org/10.3390/su1413....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
Methodology for underground mining method selection
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:2353-5423
ISSN:2300-9586
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2025 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top