2.1 Conveyors

Conveyor belts are made of several layers of different material selected for the operating conditions. Typically, the belt comprises an inner load-bearing carcass of fabric or steel cords, surrounded by top and bottom rubber covers. The carcass is the principal structural component of the belt, providing tensile strength, while the rubber covers protect the carcass from damage. The top cover carries the bulk material and the thinner bottom cover is supported by pulleys, freely rotating idlers, and drive systems. Long belts are often made up of shorter belt segments spliced together, which can be replaced individually or as a set. It is common for the belt to be the most expensive component of a conveyor system.

Wear of the top cover is predominantly due to abrasion by the bulk material, resulting in a reduction in thickness with usage (Schallamach, Reference Schallamach1954). In practice, the rate of wear is not constant throughout the life of the belt due to changing operating conditions, bulk material properties, or maintenance practices. Belts are considered worn-out when the thickness of the top cover has reached a threshold (e.g., 3 mm) at any point across the width of the belt. The belt is then either replaced or refurbished by re-coating the worn top of the belt with new rubber. While belts can fail in a variety of modes, this work focuses on belt working life as limited by top cover wear.

Belt working life is generally a function of the belt materials, the conveyor design and operation, maintenance, and the physical properties of the material being transported. As part of our work, a panel of subject matter experts were consulted with a view to extend the list of factors influencing belt wear rate that are available in the literature (All State Conveyors Pty Ltd, 2018; Masaki et al., Reference Masaki, Zhang and Xia2018; Metso, 2016; Molnar et al., Reference Molnar, Varga, Braun, Adam and Badisch2014; Schallamach, Reference Schallamach1954). This extended list is shown in a fishbone diagram of the factors (Figure 1). These factors are grouped by product (the characteristics of the conveyed product), environmental factors (location and operating environment), belt parameters (design and operational history), conveyor operational and design factors, and finally features associated with the transfer point design. The relative importance of these factors was not determined by the subject matter experts, and it is not known a priori which of these factors, or combination of factors, are most influential.

Figure 1.

Fishbone diagram showing the inputs to conveyor belt wear.

A limited range of studies on conveyor belt wear and damage has been published. Andrejiova and Marasova (Reference Andrejiova and Marasova2013) found that belt length and transported quantity of material were associated with belt service life based on exploration of data from 30 conveyors at a quarry. Further experimental work with impact drop hammers explored the significance of belt damage from falling material at the belt loading point (Andrejiova et al., Reference Andrejiova, Grincova, Marasova, Fedorko and Molnar2014). Another experimental study by Andrejiova et al. (Reference Andrejiova, Grincova and Marasova2016) examined the effects of selected factors including belt storage on belt wear.

While the existing literature establishes understanding of relationships between some factors and belt life, we have neither found clear or rigorous definitions for wear rate metrics that are useful in practice, nor work that focuses on predicting wear rate and quantifying the uncertainty in prediction performance estimates.

2.2 Thickness measurement

The current approach to planning belt replacement is to extrapolate minimum top cover thickness over time. Conventionally, a time of flight ultrasonic probe is used to measure the top cover thickness of a belt when the conveyor is shut down. Shorter belts are frequently only measured at one (longitudinal) position along the belt length, whereas longer belts made up of spliced segments may have multiple longitudinal measurement positions, often located near splices which serve as landmarks. At each longitudinal position, measurements are taken across the belt width (transverse direction) at equally spaced intervals producing a picture of the top cover cross-section.

Several factors complicate the analysis of these data.

• • It is difficult to guarantee that thickness measurements are taken at the same longitudinal position each time.

• • The belt cross-section is known only at the (longitudinal) measurement positions.

• • Data from ultrasonic probes are noisy and subject to measurement and calibration errors.

• • Belts made up of multiple segments may have splices that were installed at different times.

Figure 2 shows a sample of data from a belt displaying wear patterns that are typical for a conveyor system. The thickness should decrease over time. However, some crossover of the lines is seen in the figure, indicating measurement error.

Figure 2.

Top cover thickness of an 1,800-mm wide belt over time. Measurements are spaced 50 mm apart, but elapsed time between measurements is irregular.

3.2 Throughput data

Tonnages are measured by weightometers positioned throughout the supply chain and were extracted from a material tracking system, producing 475,191 records of bulk material movements over a continuous 8-year period. Each record captures the source and destination of the material, the product type (lump or fines), and IDs of all the equipment in between. Timestamps marking the beginning and end of the movement, the total tons, and variables describing the type of material are also recorded. The equipment IDs were matched with conveyors to calculate throughput between belt thickness tests. These data were cleaned by considering only movements with non-zero duration and a calculated throughput rate between 300 and 15,000 tons per hour. It is worth noting that the frequency of calibration of the weightometers is unknown, but since these material movements are an important value driver for the company we have made the assumption that the error in weightometer readings is negligible in our analysis.

3.3 Conveyor specifications

Conveyor and belt design and operational parameters were collated from asset registers, belt thickness files, and design drawings. These included: belt width (mm); belt length (m); belt tensile strength (kN/m); manufacturer’s belt material grade; drop height (m); and conveyor duty.

Conveyor duty is a categorical variable that classifies conveyors by a broad collection of design parameters related to the application or duty of the conveyor. When conveyors are designed, it is usually assumed that equipment belonging to the same duty-class will have similar operating requirements. Some conveyor duties had only a few observations, so these were merged with other conveyors that were similar in design. Specifically, Wharf and Tunnel duties were combined with Yard, and Car dumper conveyors were combined with Transfer conveyors. After this merging process, conveyor duty has five discrete categories: Yard, Transfer, Stacker, Reclaimer, and Shiploader. The number of conveyors and belts across duties is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of conveyor and belt counts in dataset by conveyor duty.

Belt material grade was initially considered as a categorical variable, but was omitted as the data were deemed to be insufficiently trustworthy. Belt grade had been assigned by plant staff retrospectively based on the memory of key engineers, rather than accurately recorded from the markings on the belt at the time it was installed. In more than half of the records, this value did not agree with other information that independently indicated a different grade.

Drop height is the vertical distance between the tail pulley of the conveyor and the head pulley of the upstream loading conveyor. Subject matter experts agreed that the relative velocity of the bulk material and belt at the point of loading is an important factor for belt wear, and this vertical distance was a crude but simple attempt to characterize this. It is crude because the design of the transfer chute is ignored.

4.1 Maximum wear rate

This metric aims to provide a worst-case estimate of wear rate that avoids loss of physical interpretability and reduces the risk of bias due to random noise.

Instead of using minimum thickness, data from a pool are first grouped by transverse position. For each such group, the measured thickness is regressed against either time or throughput, producing an individual estimate of wear rate at each measurement position.

The slope of the steepest line is taken to be the maximum wear rate. Figure 5 illustrates this process for three positions (in practice, an 1,800 mm wide belt will have 20 measurement positions after skirt zones are excluded).

Figure 5.

Maximum wear rate is estimated to be the slope of the steepest regression line, in this case at position 875. Only three positions are drawn for clarity.

4.2 Mean wear rate

Maximum wear rate effectively discards thickness data from all but one measurement position; the motivation for this metric is to use all the data by estimating the mean wear rate. We first estimate the belt cross-section area A using the trapezoidal rule:

(1)$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{r}A \approx \sum_{k=1}^N\frac{t_{k-1}+{t}_k}{2}\varDelta x\\ {}& =\frac{\varDelta x}{2}\left({t}_0+2{t}_1+2{t}_2+\dots +2{t}_{N-1}+{t}_N\right),\end{array}} $$

where $ \varDelta x $ is the transverse (equal) spacing between measurements, $ N $ is the total number of measurements across the belt width, and $ {t}_k $ is the thickness at the $ k $th measurement position. Removing measurements within 400 mm of the belt edge can be considered equivalent to dropping the first and last eight $ {t}_k $ values—we will index the remaining measurements by $ k^{\prime } $ and $ N^{\prime } $. Normalizing by remaining belt width then yields:

(2)$$ {\mathrm{A}}^{\prime }=\frac{\Delta \mathrm{x}}{2}\frac{1}{{\mathrm{N}}^{\prime}\Delta \mathrm{x}}\sum_{\mathrm{k}^{\prime }}2{\mathrm{t}}_{\mathrm{k}\prime }=\frac{\sum_{\mathrm{k}^{\prime }}{\mathrm{t}}_{\mathrm{k}\prime }}{\mathrm{N}^{\prime }}, $$

which is the mean thickness. Wear rate estimation proceeds by grouping thickness data from a pool by measurement date, calculating the mean thickness, and regressing against time or throughput. The slope of this line is the rate of change of mean belt thickness.

4.3 Summary of metrics

The four wear rate metrics (maximum and mean wear rates each with respect to time and throughput) were calculated for the set of pooled belt lifetimes and summary statistics from the regression analyses are shown in Table 2. Along with this tabular summary, 116 plots of the four regression models were visually inspected. Generally, a linear model for wear rate provides a good fit for the data and explains a large proportion of the variation in the thickness metric.

Table 2.

Summary statistics after calculating wear rate metrics using the set of pooled belt lifetimes.

The sample mean $ {R}^2 $ value, sample SD of $ {R}^2 $, and sample mean standard error of regression slope are evaluated on the sample of 165 belt lifetimes.

There is little difference in model fit between time- and throughput-based metrics, and this is a reflection of the fact that in our data most conveyors are utilized consistently. Mean wear rates have a slightly lower mean $ {R}^2 $ value, but are still a strong fit to the data. However, we select maximum wear rate as our metric, because if any point over the cover wears out the belt needs replacement. Further, throughput-based metrics are less sensitive to changes in production plans and non-uniform conveyor utilization, and are therefore more useful for forward planning. That is, we select throughput-based maximum wear rate as the appropriate metric to model belt wear rate.

4.4 Exploratory data analysis

Explanatory variables were explored to identify any relationships in the data, inform the modeling process, and confirm data fidelity. The range of thickness measurement dates is known to span multiple belt lifetimes for some conveyors. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the number of belt lifetimes in the thickness data over the 95 conveyors.

Figure 6.

Bar plot of number of lifetimes per conveyor. Most conveyors (72) in the data only have a single belt lifetime.

While most conveyors only have a single belt (i.e., a single row in the modeling table), 23 conveyors have more than one belt lifetime. The modeling process will be designed to eliminate a potential source of bias by ensuring belt lifetimes from the same conveyor do not appear simultaneously in both data used to fit models and data used to evaluate the models.

A correlation matrix for the continuous explanatory variables is shown in Figure 7. Belt length and load frequency are strongly inversely correlated, which is expected given that loading frequency is equal to the quotient of belt speed and length. Belt length and strength are positively correlated, and this may reflect belt tension requirements, which increase with belt length for optimal conveyor operation. Speed and width are negatively correlated, again an expected result. Wider belts have greater carrying capacities and throughput rate for a fixed speed, and volumetric flow rates of ore across a chain of belts must be consistent to avoid overloading or starving equipment. All variables are hypothesized to contribute in some way to explaining wear rate, and therefore will be included in modeling.

Figure 7.

Pair-wise Pearson correlation (rounded to one decimal place) between continuous explanatory variables.

The relationship between conveyor duty, a categorical variable, and the other continuous explanatory variables is shown in Figure 8. Some observations from these plots include:

• • stacker, shiploader, and reclaimer conveyors have similar short lengths;

• • while belt width and strength are in principle continuous quantities, only a few fixed values are present in our data (perhaps specific to the operation);

• • all reclaimer belts are 1,800 mm wide; and

• • transfer (including car dumper) and yard (including wharf and tunnel) belts have the greatest range of design parameters.

Figure 8.

Swarm plot showing the distribution of continuous explanatory variables by conveyor duty.

Conveyor duty acts as a proxy for a host of design and operational factors that make conveyors unique. Duties that have a large range of continuous variable values (e.g., transfer belts) could be scrutinized more closely in future work to identify aspects that better discriminate conveyors and potentially produce more accurate predictions. If data were available, it may be better to eliminate duty and instead enumerate the underlying specific factors that they reflect.

5.1 Repeated k-fold cross-validation

To estimate out-of-sample prediction error, a model should be evaluated on data that were not used to build the model (Hastie et al., Reference Hastie, Tibshirani and Friedman2009; Hurvich and Tsai, Reference Hurvich and Tsai1990). We use repeated k-fold cross-validation, which involves splitting the data into $ k $ subsets of roughly equal size. A single subset is set aside as the test set, and the remaining $ k-1 $ subsets are used as a training set to fit a model. The loss function (in our case, RMSE) is evaluated on the test set. This is repeated for each subset to produce $ k $ loss function values. For higher precision, the entire process is repeated $ n $ times with different splits, resulting in $ nk $ loss function values. The arithmetic mean of this set is taken to be the estimate of out-of-sample prediction error for a model-fitting algorithm; we refer to this value as the cross-validation statistic. The standard deviation (SD) of the $ nk $ loss function values is also computed to provide a measure of model performance stability.

Stated more precisely for regression, let $ D $ denote the sampled data,

(3)$$ D=\left\{\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{1}},{y}_1\right),\dots, \Big({\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{m}},{y}_m\Big)\right\}\kern1em {y}_i\in \mathbb{R}, $$

where $ {y}_i $ is the prediction target value and $ {\mathbf{x}}_{\mathbf{i}} $ is the corresponding vector of explanatory variables. Let $ {h}_D:\mathbf{x}\mapsto \hat{y} $ be a trained model instance that maps new observations $ \mathbf{x} $ to predicted values $ \hat{y} $, obtained by inputting data $ D $ to an algorithm $ \mathcal{A}:\mathbf{D}\mapsto {h}_D $. The loss function $ L:\left(\mathbf{y},\hat{\mathbf{y}}\right)\mapsto \mathbb{R} $ evaluates predictions $ \hat{y}={h}_D\left(\mathbf{x}\right) $ against known values $ \mathbf{y} $.

After partitioning $ D $ into $ k $ subsets, let $ {D}^i $ denote the data in the $ i\mathrm{th} $ subset, and $ {D}^{-i}=\left(D\operatorname{}{D}^i\right) $ denote the data with the $ i\mathrm{th} $ subset removed. Let $ {\mathbf{x}}^i,{\mathbf{y}}^i\kern0.33em \in \kern0.5em {D}^i $ and $ {\mathbf{x}}^{-i},{\mathbf{y}}^{-i}\kern0.33em \in \kern0.5em {D}^{-i} $ refer to the explanatory variable vectors and corresponding prediction target values respectively of these mutually exclusive subsets of $ D $. If the number of repeats $ n=1 $, the out-of-sample prediction error or cross-validation statistic for the algorithm $ \mathcal{A} $ is calculated as

(4)$$ \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=i}^kL\left({\mathbf{y}}^{\mathbf{i}},{h}_{D^{-i}}\left({\mathbf{x}}^{\mathbf{i}}\right)\right). $$

When $ n>1 $, the entire process is repeated with $ n $ different sets of $ k $ partitions of $ D $. The resulting $ nk $ loss function evaluations are pooled and the arithmetic mean calculated. The optimal number of folds is often reported as being $ 5\le \kern0.5em k\kern0.5em \le 10 $ (Hastie et al., Reference Hastie, Tibshirani and Friedman2009; Kohavi, Reference Kohavi1995); in this article, we use $ k=10 $ and $ n=100 $.

We expect wear rates of different belts from the same conveyor to be highly correlated. This could lead to a potential source of bias in the results if different belts from the same conveyor appear in both training and test sets within the cross-validation process. To eliminate this, we form the $ k $ subsets by shuffling conveyor IDs and pairing each with a value from the sequence $ \Big\{1,2,\dots, $k $ , 1,2,\dots \Big\} $ until the conveyor IDs are exhausted. Belts from each conveyor are assigned to the corresponding subset, producing $ k $ subsets. With 95 conveyors and $ k=10 $, the result is five subsets containing nine conveyors and five subsets of 10 conveyors. Most subsets will also be roughly equal in size (number of belt lifetimes), with a small number of larger subsets containing conveyors with multiple belt lifetimes. The resulting subsets are then examined to verify that each level of the conveyor duty variable appears in at least two distinct subsets, to ensure that the modeling algorithm is always trained with data that contains every conveyor duty. This is particularly important for linear regression, where at least one observation of each level of categorical variable is required to estimate all of the coefficients. If this condition is not met, the random split is rejected, conveyor IDs reshuffled, and the process repeated until a valid set of subsets are produced. This process of generating subsets was automated and run $ n $ times, and the same random splits were used for assessing both linear regression and random forest algorithms.

In practice, after cross-validation the same algorithm $ \mathcal{A} $ is applied to the entire dataset to produce a model instance that could be used in a production setting. In this sense, we use repeated k-fold cross-validation as a framework for estimating the performance of a model fitting process (algorithm), rather than any particular model instance. Because the cross-validation framework estimates loss using a model trained on a subset of the available sample, and model performance typically increases with the size of training data, we expect our estimate to include some pessimistic bias (Kohavi, Reference Kohavi1995).

5.2 Modeling algorithms

The first algorithm tested is ordinary least squares linear regression, which was chosen for its simplicity and wide applicability. The second algorithm tested is a random forest, implemented in the R package randomForest (Liaw and Wiener, Reference Liaw and Wiener2002). A random forest is an ensemble model consisting of a collection of decision tree predictors, each trained on a random subset of the training data sampled with replacement to a size equal to that of the training data (a bootstrap sample). Decision trees are grown by recursively splitting each terminal node of the tree, where the optimal split is found by searching over mtry randomly selected predictor variables, until a tree depth limiting condition is met (minimum node size or maximum number of terminal nodes). Predictions from a random forest are made by passing the vector of explanatory variables into each decision tree making up the forest and averaging the terminal node values.

A feature of random forests is the out-of-bag error estimate. In a bootstrap sample of size $ n $, the probability of any particular observation being selected in the first draw is $ 1/n $. Therefore, the probability that an observation is not selected is $ 1-1/n $. It follows that for the $ n $ independent draws making up the bootstrap sample, the expected proportion of data excluded is $ {\left(1-1/n\right)}^n $. It can be shown that this proportion approaches $ 1/e\kern0.33em \approx \kern0.33em 1/3 $ as $ n $ grows to infinity. These data are “out-of-bag” (OOB), and therefore can be used to estimate prediction performance similarly to k-fold cross-validation.

There are several parameters of a random forest that can impact performance, including: ntree, the number of trees to grow; mtry, the number of randomly chosen candidate variables for splitting; and nodesize, the minimum size of terminal nodes. The ntree parameter is understood to increase model performance for regression with more trees at the cost of computation time, converging to a steady maximum beyond which additional computational effort does not afford any improvement (Breiman, Reference Breiman2001). The OOB error as a function of ntree for our data is shown in Figure 9, demonstrating that a plateau is reached after roughly 500–1,000 trees. We set ntree to 1,000 for which the computational cost was not prohibitively high for our data and hardware.

Figure 9.

Out of bag prediction error as a function of the number of trees in the random forest. At each point, 100 forests were grown and errors averaged to produce a smooth curve. Error decreases monotonically and reaches a plateau.

The randomForest package provides a function tuneRF for tuning the mtry parameter to minimize the OOB error, which we use inside the training step of the cross-validation process. It is important to note that the cross-validation statistic is itself a random variable, and algorithm or tuning parameter selection based on its value can introduce optimistic bias, resulting in underestimating the out-of-sample prediction error and effectively over-fitting to the test data (Cawley and Talbot, Reference Cawley and Talbot2010). Because the OOB data are still limited to the $ k-1 $ training parts and do not overlap with the test data, tuning mtry by minimizing the OOB error inside the cross-validation process does not introduce an optimistic bias in this way, and can be considered part of the training process. We will use the cross-validation estimate to compare linear regression and random forest algorithms. However, as this involves only a single pre-specified comparison, we assume any optimistic bias associated with selection using the cross-validation statistic is negligible in this instance.

A limitation of using the OOB error in training to tune the random forest is that the bootstrap sampling process is completely random and does not respect the same constraints established in the cross-validation splitting. Specifically, two belts from the same conveyor can be both in-bag and out-of-bag, potentially resulting in sub-optimal selection of tuning parameters for out-of-sample prediction performance. Furthermore, we will not attempt to tune the value of nodesize, and instead use the package default value of 5. Implementing a modified bootstrap sampling process and tuning nodesize are two potential areas for future work.

The optimal value of mtry found in each $ nk $ trained random forest is shown in Table 3. For our data, a value of 1 was optimal in roughly 80% of forests, which is equivalent to randomly selecting a variable at each node for splitting when growing regression trees, and minimizes correlation between trees in the forest. The function tuneRF starts with $ mtry=\left\lfloor {n}_x/3\right\rfloor =2 $, (where $ {n}_x $ is the number of explanatory variables and $ \left\lfloor \cdot \right\rfloor $ is the floor function which returns the integer part of a real number) and searches by inflating and deflating this value by a factor of 2, which is why 3 does not appear in the results.

Table 3.

Stability of optimal mtry values, the number of variables randomly sampled as candidates at each split when growing trees.

This parameter is tuned to minimize out-of-bag error on training data in every cross-validation fold. The value is 1 almost 80% of the time.

Because tuning mtry is a part of the model training process, in practice when training a random forest in a production setting using all of the data, mtry should not be fixed to 1; instead the same tuning process should be repeated. Analyzing the distribution of optimal values is still informative and provides a measure of model stability.

6.1 Prediction error

The sample mean loss function value (cross-validation statistic), sample SD of loss values, and the percent improvement in RMSE over the uninformative null model are summarized in Table 4. $ \mathrm{SD}\ \left(\overline{\mathrm{RMSE}}\right) $ were calculated over mean loss values for each test set, pooled over each repeat of the cross-validation process (a total of $ kn $ values) to measure performance stability.

Table 4.

Prediction performance results.

Both random forest and simple linear regression outperformed the null model, demonstrating that the explanatory variables contain predictive information for wear rate that generalizes to out-of-sample conveyors. Random forest performed better than simple linear regression ($ \overline{\mathrm{RMSE}} $ of 0.152 vs. 0.160), though the difference (7.75 × 10^–3) is much smaller than the SD of the difference (2.97 × 10⁻², calculated over $ kn $ RMSE pairs), suggesting no difference between the performance of the two methods.

The random forest has a median $ {R}^2 $ value of $ 0.58 $, calculated against test data over each cross-validation split ($ \mathrm{SD}=0.29 $). This shows that while the model is effective in using information from the explanatory variables to narrow the likely range of belt wear rate $ \left({R}^2>0\right) $, a relatively large amount of unexplained variance remains, suggesting that there are possibly other factors not in our data that could be gathered to produce better predictions.

Because the prediction target $ y $ (belt wear rate measured as slope of regression line of measured thickness over throughput) used to train the model is a variable with nonconstant variance, the accuracy of the predictive model should be interpreted carefully. That is, an assumption of linear regression is homoscedasticity, and this is likely to be violated here. Also, a thorough approach to estimating the overall prediction error with respect to the true physical wear rate (estimated by $ y $) would include information about the uncertainty of both the predictive model and the regression process used to generate wear rates. The mean standard error of the regression slopes is sufficiently small (4.48 × 10–2) relative to the RMSE of the linear regression (1.60 × 10–1) and random forest (1.52 × 10–1) models, so we can ignore the effect of the intermediate regression modeling in estimating the wear rates.

6.2 Variable importance and effects

While our primary purpose of modeling in this problem is prediction and not inference, it is often desirable or even essential for model predictions to be explainable. It is also useful to understand the relative importance of input variables and how they relate to the predicted values. One method for assessing the importance of variables that can be applied regardless of the choice of algorithm is the permutation method.

The permutation method takes a trained model instance and proceeds as follows.

1. 1. Calculate the loss (RMSE) on a dataset unseen in training.

2. 2. Shuffle (permute) the values of a single explanatory variable, and recalculate the loss on the same data using the shuffled values.

3. 3. Store the deterioration in loss after shuffling, restore the original ordering of values, and repeat the process for remaining explanatory variables.

A version of this method is implemented by the randomForest package that makes use of OOB data. However, as previously discussed, the OOB data can still include conveyors seen in training which could bias results. Instead of using this method, we reuse the repeated cross-validation procedure and demonstrate an approach that is compatible with any algorithm. The permutation method steps are repeated in each cross-validation partition and the difference in RMSE before and after permuting each explanatory variable is stored resulting in $ nk $ values for each variable. The mean and SD of the change in model RMSE for the random forest is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10.

Permutation importance results, shown as the deterioration in RMSE as a result of shuffling each variable. Larger values indicate the variable is more important to prediction accuracy. Lines represent one SD of $ \Delta \mathrm{RMSE} $ over each test set in cross-validation.

The limitations of this technique should be considered when interpreting these results. Most importantly, they should not be taken to be a direct answer to questions about the importance of factors for the underlying physical process of belt wear. Controlled experiments are a better approach for such questions. Instead, the results reflect how important the variables are for prediction performance for a specific choice of algorithm and performance metric. Second, permutation importance tends to spread importance across collinear variables and shows bias toward categorical variables with many levels (Altmann et al., Reference Altmann, Tolosi, Sander and Lengauer2010; Strobl, Reference Strobl2007).

These results suggest that load frequency, belt length, and conveyor duty are the most important variables for prediction accuracy. The necessarily strong correlation between length and load frequency makes it difficult to separate the importance of these two variables; Strobl et al. (Reference Strobl, Hothorn and Zeileis2009) and Strobl (Reference Strobl2007)) suggest a conditional permutation approach which may provide greater insight. Conveyor duty is the next most important variable, indicating that further efforts in “unpacking” duty into individual variables characterizing the conveyor may provide clearer insight into the effect of conveyor duty on wear rate. Belt width was expected to be an important variable due to its effect on belt loading and capacity, though it is only moderately important relative to other variables. Belt speed, strength, drop height, and % fines are similarly low in importance in these models.

Finally, to provide some insight into the relationship between the most important variables and predicted wear rate, partial dependence plots shown in Figure 11 were generated using the pdp package for R (Greenwell, Reference Greenwell2017). These figures correspond to a random forest model with fixed parameters $ mtry=1 $ and $ ntree=\mathrm{1,000} $. The joint effects of conveyor duty paired with loading frequency, belt length, and belt width were inspected, along with individual conditional expectation plots (Goldstein et al., Reference Goldstein, Kapelner, Bleich and Pitkin2013), which did not suggest the presence of any remarkable interactions. Therefore, only single predictor partial dependence plots are shown.

Figure 11.

Partial dependence plots of random forest model with top four variables.

Figure 11 shows that predicted wear rates increase with greater load frequencies and decrease for longer and wider belts. Stacker conveyors have the highest wear rate among the duty levels, and yard conveyors have the lowest. The range of effect size for load frequency and conveyor duty are similar and larger than for belt length and width. The relatively large effect size of load frequency and its reasonably linear relationship to wear rate, coupled with the lack of remarkable interactions may explain why the performance difference between the random forest and linear regression models is small.