Safety and risk management in underground construction as a complex information process

Risk assessment aims to help decision-makers achieve their goals and identify appropriate and effective means to improve the level of safety in the area under consideration. The output of the risk assessment is the input to the decision-making process. Therefore, the role of information safety cannot be overestimated. This postulate is particularly relevant for urban underground construction, which is characterized by a constant change in conditions during the work process. Therefore, in this area of activity, constant monitoring of information is necessary. It is necessary to systematize the monitoring data of risk assessment, as well as the registration of the effectiveness of management methods used in risk analysis at all stages of the life cycle of the natural and technical geosystem “rock mass — technology — underground structure — environment”. Underground construction is always characterized by the presence of several alternative options for making a decision that would ensure a balance of geotechnical and other types of risk at an acceptable level. At the stage of design and construction of underground facilities, competent presentation of information contributes to ensuring the acceptable risk of the geosystem; improvement of the construction project and its economic efficiency; identification of dangerous events оn subsequent stages of the life cycle. To manage the safety of the natural and technical geosystem “rock mass — technology — underground structure — environment”, it is of paramount importance to establish a relationship between command information. information about the state of underground facilities and the external environment.

Kulikova E.Yu., Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Professor, Department “Safety and Ecology of Mining Production”, fragrante@mail.ru, NUST «MISiS», Moscow, Russia.

1. Vladimirov V.A., Izmalkov V.I., Izmalkov A.V. Funktsional’naya struktura protsessa upravleniya v sfere grazhdanskoy zashchity [Functional structure of the management process in the field of civil protection]. Moscow: CyberLeninka, 2013, pp. 580—601. [In Russ].

2. Burkov V.N., Gratsiansky E.V., Dziubko S.I., Schchepkin A.V. Modeli i mekhanizmy upravleniya bezopasnostiu [Models and mechanisms of safety management). Series “Safety”]. Moscow: SINTEG, 2001, 160 p. [In Russ].

3. Baidakov S.L. Teoriya i metodologiya strategicheskogo upravleniya megapolisom i yego territorialnymi yedinitsami [Theory and methodology of strategic management of megapolis and its territorial units]. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics, 2010. [In Russ].

4. Vetoshkin A.G. Monitoring i audit promyshlennoy i ecologicheskoy bezopasbosty [Monitoring and audit of industrial and environmental safety]. Izv. Acad. prom. ecology. 2004. No. 1. рр. 20—25 [In Russ].

5. Buyanov V.P., Kirsanov K.A., Mikhailova L.M. Riskologiya (upravleniye riskami) [Riskology (risk management]. 2nd ed. ISPR. I DOP. Moscow: Publishing House “Exam”, 2003, 384 p. [In Russ].

6. Klebanov F.S. Obstchaya teoriya bezopasnosty [General theory of safety]. “15 years of the Russian Academy of Sciences”. Mining and metallurgical section (geological exploration, mining, metallurgy)”. Moscow: Intermet Engineering, 2005, pp. 175—186. [In Russ].

7. Kulikova E.Yu. Metodologiya vebora ecologichesky bezopasnykh technology podzemnogo stroitelstva [Methodology for choosing environmentally safe technologies for underground construction]. Moscow: MGGU Publishing House, 2005, 342 p. [In Russ].

8. Hebblewhite B.K. Northparkes findings — the implications for geotechnical professionals in the mining industry. Proceedings of the First Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference. 2003. рр. 3—10, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

9. Hebblewhite B.K. Management of core geotechnical risks for underground mining projects. Mining Risk Management Conference. 2003. P. 5,The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne.

10. Mishra R.K. and Rinne M. Geotechnical Risk classification for underground mines. De gruyter open. 2015. No. 60. pp. 51—60.

11. Gransberg D.D., Gad G.M., Touran A., Castro-Nova I. A hybrid project team-expert approach for geotechnical risk assessment on transportation design-build projects. Conference: Transportation Research Board, Washington, January 2018.

12. Sartain N., Mian J., Peluso D. Risk assessment in geotechnical engineering practice. Conference: Geo-Risk, 2017.

13. Balovtsev S.V., Shevchuk R.V. Geomechanical monitoring of mine shafts in difficult ground conditions. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2018, no 8, pp. 77—83. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2018-8-0-77-83. [In Russ].

14. Balovtsev S.V., Ibragimov T.M., Balovtsev P.V., Khlybov E.M. An integrated approach to the formation of an information database for the risk management process in mining. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2011, no S7, pp. 102—107. [In Russ].

15. Mishra R.K., Janiszewski M., Uotinen L.K. T., Szydlowska M., Siren T. and Rinne M. Geotechnical Risk Management Concept for Intelligent Deep Mines. Procedia Engineering. 2017. No. 191. Pp. 361—368.

16. Katzenbach R., Leppla S. Challenging construction projects related to urban tunnels. Geotechnical Engineering. 2014, no 45(3), pp. 71—77.

17. Petrov V.L. Federal training and guideline association on applied geology, mining, oil and gas production and geodesy — A new stage of government, academic community and industry cooperation. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2016, no 9, pp. 115—119. DOI: 10.17580/ gzh.2016.09.23. [In Russ].

18. Petrov V.L., Krupin Yu. A., Kochetov A.I. Evaluation of professional education quality in mining and metallurgy: New approaches. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2016, no 12, pp. 94—97. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2016.12.19. [In Russ].

19. Petrov V.L. Training of mineral dressing engineers at Russian Universities. Tsvetnye Metally. 2017, no 7, pp. 14—19. DOI: 10.17580/tsm.2017.07.02. [In Russ].

20. Puchkov L.A., Petrov V.L. The system of higher mining education in Russia. Eurasian Mining. 2017. No 2. Pp. 57—60. DOI: 10.17580/em.2017.02.14.