For decades, mining reliability has been measured by a simple question: How long did the component last? It’s an important metric. But it may no longer be the most valuable one.

 

Across the mining industry, reliability is increasingly being evaluated through a different lens: the ability to reduce maintenance interventions, minimise operational disruption and maintain production continuity.

The Reliability Metric That Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story

When a mining operation increases component service life from 125 hours to as much as 700 hours, the obvious headline is the additional 575 hours. The less obvious question is why that improvement matters.

For decades, reliability has largely been measured by durability. Components either lasted or they didn’t. If service life increased, reliability was considered to have improved.

But across the mining sector, that definition is beginning to change. Operators are increasingly recognising that reliability is not simply about how long a component survives. It is about how effectively an operation can reduce maintenance interventions, control risk and maintain continuity of production.

A recent breakout jaw application provides a useful example.

The 575-Hour Result

At a New South Wales mining operation, breakout jaws on a surface production drill were averaging approximately 125 hours of service life before replacement was required.

The challenge appeared straightforward: The jaws were wearing out.

Traditionally, the solution would focus on extending component life. However, that perspective only considers the component itself. Every replacement event also creates maintenance planning requirements, labour demand, operational disruption and production impact.

The question quickly becomes larger than wear life alone. How often does the operation need to stop and respond?

Following an engineering assessment of wear patterns, operating conditions and failure mechanisms, MASPRO redesigned the breakout jaw to address the root causes of premature wear.  The resulting engineered improvements incorporated tungsten inserts, enhanced wear surfaces and strengthened jaw performance.

The outcome was significant. Service life increased from approximately 125 hours to between 500 and 700 hours in the same application.

The numerical improvement was substantial. Yet the most important outcome wasn’t the additional hours.

It was the reduction in intervention frequency.

Looking at the result through an operational lens highlights why the improvement mattered. At 125 hours of service life, the operation could expect approximately eight breakout jaw replacements across every 1,000 operating hours. At 700 hours, that requirement falls to fewer than two replacement events.

While exact maintenance schedules vary between sites, the implication is clear: fewer interventions, fewer maintenance resources required, fewer opportunities for unplanned disruption, and greater control over equipment availability.

The reliability improvement was not simply measured in hours. It was measured in the number of maintenance events eliminated.

Why Longer Life Wasn’t the Real Outcome

In mining, maintenance activity is often treated as a necessary consequence of operation.  But every intervention carries a cost beyond the replacement component itself.

Maintenance teams must be mobilised. Equipment must be taken out of service. Work must be planned, scheduled and executed safely. Production schedules may need to adapt around the work.

Individually, these impacts can appear manageable. Collectively, they create a substantial operational burden.

This is why reliability is increasingly being viewed through a broader lens. The objective is not simply to maximise component life. The objective is to minimise the frequency with which the operation must intervene.

A component that lasts longer is valuable. A component that reduces maintenance events can be even more valuable.

The cost of intervention

When reliability is measured only by service life, many of the operational consequences remain hidden.

Every maintenance event introduces:

  • Labour requirements
  • Equipment downtime
  • Production disruption
  • Maintenance planning complexity
  • Safety exposure during intervention
  • Variability within maintenance schedules

These costs rarely appear on a purchase order, but they influence productivity every day. This is why many mining operations are beginning to evaluate reliability in terms of operational continuity rather than component durability alone.

The question is no longer simply: “How long did it last?”

Increasingly, it is: “How much disruption did it create?”

H2: Reliability Beyond Wear Life

The concept of reliability is evolving. Historically, reliability was often treated as a characteristic of individual components. If a part exceeded its expected service life, it was considered reliable.

Modern mining operations are increasingly adopting a system-level view. Reliability is becoming less about isolated component performance and more about the behaviour of the operation as a whole.

Can maintenance activities be planned more effectively? Can interventions be reduced? Can equipment performance become more predictable? Can production continue with fewer interruptions?

Under this definition, reliability is not simply a product attribute. It becomes an operational outcome.

The breakout jaw example demonstrates this shift clearly. While the service life increase was substantial, the broader value came from reducing the number of times the operation needed to stop and address the issue.

As Jason Kennard, head of operations at MASPRO, explains:

“The most valuable reliability improvements aren’t always the ones that produce the biggest wear-life number. They’re the ones that reduce operational disruption and give maintenance teams greater control over how assets behave in service.”

What This Means for Modern Mining

As mining companies continue to pursue productivity improvements, many of the biggest gains are no longer coming from large capital investments alone. Increasingly, value is being unlocked through engineering improvements that reduce operational friction.

Components that last longer contribute to that outcome. Components that reduce intervention frequency contribute even more. This shift reflects a broader trend across the industry. Reliability is no longer viewed solely as a maintenance metric. It is becoming a productivity metric.

The ability to reduce disruption, improve predictability and maintain operational continuity is increasingly defining what reliable performance looks like in modern mining environments.

A Different Question for Reliability Leaders

For many years, the industry asked a simple question: How long did the component last?

It’s still an important measure.

But it may no longer be the most important one.

For MASPRO, projects like this reflect a broader shift in how reliability is understood across mining operations. Increasingly, reliability is being measured not by how long a component survives, but by how effectively engineering decisions reduce maintenance burden, operational disruption and uncertainty.

As mining operations focus on productivity, risk reduction and operational continuity, a more useful question is emerging: How many interruptions did it eliminate?

Engineering Reliability Beyond Component Life

Every mining operation has components that drive disproportionate maintenance effort, downtime and operational disruption.

Identifying those components is often the first step towards improving reliability across the wider system.

MASPRO works with mining operations to assess wear performance, identify recurring maintenance challenges and engineer solutions that reduce intervention frequency while improving operational continuity.