Figure 4 – Structural Integrity Management (SIM) through infrastructure lifecycle 6. CONCLUSIONS Aging industrial infrastructure represents a structural constraint on the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of mining operations. As asset lives are extended beyond original design assumptions and operational intensity increases, unmanaged structural uncertainty becomes a material risk to safety, continuity, and capital performance. Addressing this challenge requires more than reactive maintenance; it demands institutionalized lifecycle governance. The Structural Integrity Management (SIM) framework presented in this paper demonstrates that structural integrity can be systematically embedded within mining organizations through a governance-driven, risk-informed, and engineering-based methodology. By integrating integrity considerations from early project design and engineering phases through commissioning, operation, life extension, and end-of-life decision-making, the framework supports continuous risk control throughout the asset lifecycle. The integration of asset management principles, structured risk evaluation, and service life assessment establishes a defensible and transparent basis for infrastructure performance management under evolving operational conditions. Ultimately, structural integrity must evolve from a periodic inspection activity to an integrated lifecycle discipline aligned with enterprise risk management and sustainable infrastructure objectives. Organizations that advance along this governance maturity pathway will be better positioned to unlock value from both new and existing assets while maintaining safety, resilience, and responsible mineral production. In this context,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2