governance structure. This organizational fragmentation complicates explicit accountability, technical information consolidation, and decision traceability. As a result, structural integrity may become an isolated technical function, disconnected from strategic planning and integrated asset management. Another significant limitation lies in the weak integration between inspection findings and enterprise management systems. Although many companies operate ERP or computerized maintenance management systems, structural information is frequently recorded inconsistently, with non-standardized data models or loosely defined criticality criteria. The absence of dedicated structural health indicators and risk-based performance metrics restricts effective prioritization and long-term planning. Change management processes also represent a frequently underestimated vulnerability. Operational modifications, load increases, equipment upgrades, or alterations in structural configurations may introduce additional demands that are not always assessed from a structural integrity perspective. When such changes are not embedded within a formal review and approval framework, cumulative risk may increase inadvertently over time. In the context of asset life extension and end-of-life decisions, the lack of standardized methodologies to evaluate residual capacity and structural risk further constrains robust decision-making. Assessments may rely on qualitative judgment or isolated studies that are not fully integrated with the asset’s historical performance and degradation records. This condition may result either in conservative overinvestment or in underestimated risk exposure with potentially severe consequences. In summary, current practices tend to focus on defect detection and correction rather than on comprehensive structural risk governance. The absence of a structured methodological architecture integrating lifecycle thinking, digital traceability, organizational roles, and risk-based prioritization limits the ability of mining operations to manage ageing infrastructure in a sustainable, resilient, and strategically aligned manner. 4. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT (SIM) FRAMEWORK The limitations identified in current structural integrity practices demonstrate the need for a structured, governance-driven approach capable of systematically controlling structural risk across the infrastructure lifecycle. Addressing ageing assets and operational intensification requires more than improved inspection techniques; it demands an integrated methodological architecture that aligns engineering assessment, organizational accountability, and digital traceability. The Structural Integrity Management (SIM) framework is proposed as a comprehensive model designed to embed structural risk governance within mining operations. The framework is structured around three interdependent layers—Governance, Technical Integrity, and Digital Enablement—operating transversally across all lifecycle
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2