Towards the Application of Process Mining in the Mining Industry—An LHD Maintenance Process Optimization Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper examines whether Process Mining techniques can improve the maintenance process of mine equipment. The study analyzes low-level data as an event log and creates a process model to optimize workflow. The maintenance process is simulated using Discrete-Event Simulation, and the generated event log is analyzed using Process Mining. The research is based on a case study of the maintenance process in an underground block caving mine to gain operational insight. A manuscript has a practical application and also provides important theoretical for the next studies.

 

The current abstract section appears inadequate, and it would be more suitable to adhere to the structured abstract format suggested by MDPI. This format should consist of the following elements: Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. The Background section should provide context to the research question and highlight the study's purpose. The Methods section should briefly describe the primary techniques utilized in the study. The Results section should provide a summary of the primary findings of the research. Finally, the Conclusion section should summarize the main interpretations or conclusions drawn from the study.

 

In your research authors must discuss below mentioned issues (indicate lines):

- What is the hypothesis being tested in this research?

- How is low-level data processed in this study, and what is it used for?

- What simulation technique is utilized to generate an event log in this study?

- What type of mine is used as a case study to gain operational insight in this research?

- How does this study aim to optimize the workflow for mine equipment maintenance processes?

 

The introductory section of this paper requires improvement in order to better engage and inform the reader about the topic at hand.

 

The literature review of “Process Mining” is presented quite well, but what about “Mining Sustainability”.

Here I would like to bring your attention to the paper (Markevych, K.; Maistro, S.; Koval, V.; Paliukh, V. Mining sustainability and circular economy in the context of economic security in Ukraine. Min. Miner. Depos. 2022, 16, 101-113. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining16.01.101). Please consider it and add more relevant references.

 

Sharper figures are required.

 

Figure 5 should be discussed.

 

Figure 7. Legend – “Operator requests tow but could drive to …..” ???

 

Please provide a short description of further research.

 

In order for readers to comprehend the unique contribution and potential applications of the study for future research, it is crucial to highlight the novelty and significance of the research in the conclusion section of the paper. Therefore, it is important to effectively communicate the innovative aspects of the research in the conclusion section of the paper.

 

 

After careful review and consideration of the suggested revisions, it will be highly recommended that the article be published in the "Sustainability" journal. The overall impression of the article is favorable.

Author Response

Please find the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall a very good paper. I have no comments on the content - just change the fonts on Figures 3 and 4 to the same used in the rest of the paper and improve the resolution of the diagrams shown, if possible.

Author Response

Please find the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors are doing a good job to summarize what has been published with respect to process mining and other processes. Also the authors do a good job to identify the gap in the literature. Equipment maintenance is a really important operation in mining.   It is not clear how the authors developed their distributions shown in table 4. Was that based on actual measurements for years 2018 and 2019? If so, it should be explicitly stated. If not it should be explained.   I would recommend a certain phrases and words are not capitalized, such as longwall in line 100, conformance checking also in line 100 and previously, etc. I understand that the authors want to emphasize these processes, but capitalization is typically used for established terms that are subsequently abbreviated.   I would also not capitalize data science as it refers to discipline. It would be the same as capitalizing mining engineering as a discipline, but we typically don't do that. Another example is in lines 147 and 148 were the abbreviated phrases are not capitalized   Line 107: in the literature Line 119: several publications in the literature....   There are a lot of typos in figure one. It should be operator requests and not operator request It should be operator diagnoses and not operator diagnose It should be mechanic diagnoses and not mechanic diagnosis   The graph would also look better if some of the horizontal lines are aligned so that the left and right branch start from the same point   Line 167 needs to be rephrased as it seems that something is missing between the words system and orders   I'm not sure what the difference between column 1 and column 2 in table one is. One is supposed to be the technical location and the other one is the name of the technical location?   Also call them seven should probably have the work date. The same applies to column 9.   I am not sure what the column titled stop duration means. It may need to be renamed to duration of failure or duration of equipment stoppage   I'm not sure what the call them title status USU means. The column title failure code is misspelled.   Table two: is the real cost sum in units of currency? And if so what currency. Perhaps the word real should be replaced with the word actual. What does CeCO  resp. mean?   Line 198: what is a radial jumbo? I don't think this is a standard term in the international literature.   Line 201 and 202: same comment about capitalizing abbreviated terms   Line 219: I think the term failure statistic is not a valid term. Do you mean statistical analysis of failures?   Figure 3. The charts mention accumulated percentage. Do the authors mean cumulative percentage?   Figure 4: on the bottom right hand side there is a number 100 and the top left hand side. There is a number 1000. Do these numbers correspond to time? If so, they should be on the left axis. This comment applies to both a and b. In both figures, it's better to use the term electrical system instead of electric system. You can use Google to determine the difference.   Figure 5: I understand that the term create LHD means create an LHD object in arena or the simulation package. However, that is not clear to the reader as figure 5 is not referenced in the text.   Line 233: the abbreviation RCM has been defined before   Table five Row four: the time the mechanic waits.... Row eight: spare parts   Figure six: I understand that the time in column 6 is in seconds ( 600). Please add the units to the column title. The same should be done for column 7. In the figure caption, the arbitrary code should be explained   In line 337 conformance checking is hyphenated while previously it was not.   I am not sure what the expression in line. 352 means: the equipment is disassembled to assemble another. Do you mean you're going to use parts from a different piece of equipment?   Section 6 results. The term idle time is used in conjunction with failure or non-productive activity. Typically I do time is used in utilization studies to indicate that the equipment is waiting on another process. Perhaps a different term can be used or at least a sentence should be added the differentiate that use from the standard use.   Figure seven: operator misdiagnosis, m should not be capitalized.   Line 478: we do not repair a failure. We repaired a piece of equipment that has failed.  

 

see above

Author Response

Please find the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have completed all recommended revisions.

There is one minor typo can was missed in Figure 1

"Mechanic brings parts and evaluate in the field" should be corrected to "Mechanic brings parts and evaluates in the field"

 

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail in reviewing the manuscript entitled “Towards the Application of Process Mining in the Mining Industry - A LHD Maintenance Process Optimization Case Study” and thank them for their time. We have considered all the reviewer’s comments and profoundly edited the manuscript to improve its quality and contribution. We have provided responses to the reviewer’s comments below and edited the manuscript with tracked changes:

Response: The typo in Figure 1 has been corrected