Development of Failure Cause–Impact–Duration (CID) Plots for Water Supply and Distribution System Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript concerns crucial issue of development of failure cause-impact-duration plots for water supply and distribution system management. Some of the figures (the description of the axis) are illegible, as for example: Line 278. Figure 4. Individual ID plots for different failures: (a) RWPF, (b) WTP, (c) RES, (d) PS, (e) WSP, (f) DMP, (g) DP, (h) WQF, and (i) ND. Line 449. What does “1.” mean? Line: 214: Is it publish online (a WSDS failure casebook, Is this approach was consulted with water managers? In conclusions add some information about future perspectives of work, concerning the choice of reference, which should be supplemented with respect to the practical concept of damage resulting from pipe failures, that will improve service delivery, and help to allocate effective and sufficient funds, as in Pietrucha-Urbanik, K.; Studzinski, A. case study of failure simulation of pipelines conducted in chosen water supply system. Eksploat. Niezawodn. 2017, 19, 317–323, and risk definition, which means a measure by which to assess a hazard or threat resulting either from probable events beyond our control or from the possible consequences of a decision [b], which have been developed in Ref. b. Rak,J.; Pietrucha-Urbanik, K. An approach to determine risk indices for drinking water – study investigation. Sustainability-Basel, 2019, 11, 3189. Line 328: What You mean by high priority of management?
Author Response
Thank you for the comments. We made a revision of our manuscript. Please see the attachment for the details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have done changes in manuscript, but I insist on risk analysis related with failure probability. At least some simple calculation, i.e. Gauss approximation or something similar. Without this, paper has small scientific contribution.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments. We made a revision of our manuscript. Please see the attachment for the details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved according to the review comments.
As for Eq. (1), it would be advisable replacing the brace with another symbol, since the bubble center is located at the average OR at the maximum.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments. We made a revision of our manuscript. Please see the attachment for the details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After all this revisions, I figured it out that is no much possibilities for development of the scientific impact of the paper. Despite of this, i support publication of the paper, due to the reviews of other reviewer and editor decision.
