Synthesis of managerial decisions to the effect of underground construction safety

Safety of underground space development is ensured by the criterion analysis-based selection of managerial decisions on minimization of geotechnical and other risks. The criterion analysis can be the basis for the synthesis of managerial decisions to the effect of underground safety. The synthesis is implemented using decision making theory which includes conceptual, conceptual–executive and tactical levels. The first and the second levels represent the concept and the main strategies of minimization of the worst-case situation possibility. The tactical level expects elaboration of literate managerial decisions on actions plans aimed at minimization of geotechnical risks. Aimed at elimination of a hazardous event in underground construction, the concept of managerial decision selection should be based on synthesis of formalized informational and analytical problems on avoidance of an off-optimum situation owing to an alternative decision. The alternative decision criterion may be either the quantitative characteristic of undertaken safety provisions in underground construction, i.e. efficiency of safety measures, or the systemic risk level determination including all adverse geotechnical, ecological, organizational, social and economic factors in the nature-and-technology system represented by the rocks mass–technology–underground structure–environment integration, or the utility function of a managerial decision. Regarding the safety provision, it is critical to support the off-optimum situation valuation in underground construction by intelligent information-based reasoning.

Keywords: managerial decision, intelligent information support, geotechnical risk, off-optimum situation, safety, construction technology.
For citation:

Kulikova E. Yu., Potapova E. V. Synthesis of managerial decisions to the effect of underground construction safety. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2022;(2):62-69. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2022_2_0_62.

Issue number: 2
Year: 2022
Page number: 62-69
ISBN: 0236-1493
UDK: 69.035.4:65
DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2022_2_0_62
Article receipt date: 03.11.2021
Date of review receipt: 18.11.2021
Date of the editorial board′s decision on the article′s publishing: 10.01.2022
About authors:

E.Yu. Kulikova1, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Professor, e-mail:,
E.V. Potapova1, Graduate Student, e-mail:,
1 National University of Science and Technology «MISiS», 119049, Moscow, Russia.


For contacts:

E.Yu. Kulikova, e-mail:


1. Akimov V. A., Vladimirov V. A., Izmalkov V. I. Katastrofy i bezopasnost' [Catastrophes and safety], Moscow, MCHS Rossii, 2006. 387 p.

2. Kulikova E. Yu. Development of management decisions in the field of underground construction safety. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2014, no. 1, pp. 79—82. [In Russ].

3. Den'ga V. S., Kotel'nikov N. Yu., Polutornyy A. V. Ekologicheskoe strakhovanie v toplivno-energeticheskom komplekse [Environmental insurance in the fuel and energy complex], Moscow, Gazoil press, 1998, 120 p.

4. Alymov V. T., Krapchatov V. P., Tarasova N. P. Analiz tekhnogennogo riska [Analysis of technogenic risk], Moscow, Tsentr «Integratsiya», 1999, 160 p.

5. Burkov V. N., Gratsianskiy E. V., Dzyubko S. I., Shchepkin A. V. Modeli i mekhanizmy upravleniya bezopasnost'yu. Seriya «Bezopasnost'» [Models and mechanisms of safety management. Series «Safety»], Moscow, SINTEG, 2001, 160 p.

6. Zinovieva O. M., Kuznetsov D. S., Merkulova A. M., Smirnova N. A. Digitalization of industrial safety management systems in mining. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021, no. 2-1, pp. 113—123. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2021-21-0-113-123.

7. Potapova E. V. Typology of metro structures for the tasks of geotechnical risk classification. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2021, no. 6, pp. 52—60. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.17073/2500-0632-2021-1-52-60.

8. Kulikova E. Yu., Balovtsev S. V. Risk control system for the construction of urban underground structures. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020, vol. 962, no. 4, article 042020. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/962/4/042020.

9. Kaufman L. L., Lysikov B. A. Geotekhnicheskie riski v podzemnom stroitel'stve (obzor zarubezhnogo opyta) [Geotechnical risks in underground construction (review of foreign experience)], Donetsk, Nord-Press, 2009, 362 p.

10. Garber V. A. Abnormal situations at underground transport facilities. Podzemnye gorizonty. 2018, no. 16, pp. 20—25. [In Russ].

11. Sousa R. L. Risk analysis for tunneling projects: Thesis (Ph. D.) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. 2010. URL: http: hdl.handle. net/1721.1/58282.

12. Chunyuk D. Yu. Features of classification and components of geotechnical risk in construction. Industrial and civil engineering. 2013, no. 9, рр. 42—44.

13. Pwint Phyu Khine, Wang Zhao Shun Big data for organizations: a review. Journal of Computer and Communications. 2017, vol. 5, no. 3, рр. 40—48.

14. Reis M., Gins G. Industrial process monitoring in the Big data/Industry 4.0 era: From detection, to diagnosis, to prognosis. Processes. 2017, no. 5, p. 35.

15. Mishra R. K., Janiszewski M., Uotinen L. K. T., Szydlowska M., Siren T., Rinne M. Geotechnical risk management concept for intelligent deep mines. Procedia Engineering. 2017, no. 191, pp. 361—368.

16. Hebblewhite B. K. Geotechnical risk in mining methods and practice: critical issues and pitfalls of risk management. J Wesseloo (ed.). Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth. 2019, pp. 299—308. [In Russ].

Подписка на рассылку

Раз в месяц Вы будете получать информацию о новом номере журнала, новых книгах издательства, а также о конференциях, форумах и других профессиональных мероприятиях.