A Modeling of Human Reliability Analysis on Dam Failure Caused by Extreme Weather

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are lots of statistics without any appropriate references, e.g., lines 41 to 50, &  line 577 to line 586.

Line 165, “As shown in the figure”. In what figure? The reason a figure has a caption is to be referred to. Similarly in line 817.

There is doubt about the validation of the result as the size of samples for sensitive analysis has not been clarified by the authors.

The figures are not clear. Figure 6 shows the factors affecting operation execution phase reliability. Figure 7 causality diagram, Figure 9 human error, and so on.

The dam failure event tree is vague. According to the authors, the qualitative-quantitative table has been presented in Appendix A, however, it is not clear the data set and the logic behind this decision for this special project.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions. All suggested revisions and comments were accurately incorporated and considered. Please see the attachment for the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

a very interesting and informative paper, a very helpful insight to the impact of humans on the management of key water storage assets at a time of climate emergency 

Title:             A modelling of human reliability analysis on dam failure caused by extreme weather (there is a difference in UK and US spelling)

Date:            17^th, 18^th & 19^th Nov 2023

Summary:

A good summary which overviews the body of the work. Excellent into, very good details and statistics. Very good comprehensive coverage of the context nationally and internationally. Good linkages to asset management, safety considerations and climate change. Rationale for HRA is logical and well referenced.  The material collated and reorganised to design the analysis is very well presented and the rationale is good.  A detailed methodology for the Bayesian networks is clearly set out.   The resulting analysis is clear, and this preliminary work will serve as a useful training tool for the development of staff and managers of such assets.  The authors have noted the limited training data but as a first approach, the method has proven useful and yield clear insights into the human potential for error within the management of large-scale water storage assets.  This was an interesting paper to read there are some minor bits of editing to do.

Minor issues:

Line 22         BN needs defined in the text; I am assuming this is Bayesian network. It would be useful to clarify this.

Line 25         our is not 3^rd person. There are other cases of ‘he’ and ‘she’ within the text, please amend. Thank you.

Line 27         the usage of the word ‘propaganda’ could be construed as something misleading, ‘education’ is a possible better alternative.

Line 36         the demarcation Large, Medium, and Small is this based on capacity, design age, or arborary assignment?

Line 40-        When speaking of a dam failure, what exactly do the authors mean? Is it a loss of service, a local failure (elemental) or a catastrophic failure? This may appear fussy but in the mind of the reader the wording can have radically different meanings.  See lines 49 to 50 etc.

Line 44         units on the rate?

                     Please add reference 16 to the text, it appears to be missing

Line 47.        to be killed

Line 75         the quotation from the ministry of water resources needs a reference.

Please check the method of referencing to ensure it comply with the method required by the publishers. There are a number of methods used and a consistent form should be adopted by the authors. This is an observation and not a criticism.

Line 165        in Figure 1

Line 224        Figure 2

Section 3.1   I would suggest underlining the key factors e.g., Environmental factors for the benefit of the readers.  The material is good, but it will allow the reader to see the sub-sections easier, again just a suggestion. This can be considered in the next sections also.

Figure 6.0     some lines on the edge of the figure are missing, this is most likely and alignment issue.

Line 420/1     This sentence seems a little lost or open ended, please check and amend.

Line 436        CREAM needs a ref as done any other statement of quote within the text.

Line 448        Swain ref?

Figure 7        is a little hard to read but I understand the need to fit into one-page etc and please check the spacing in to boxes e.g., teamw ork etc.  again, very minor.

Line 552        Bayes theorem should have a ref.

Line 639-644 refs for the methods are needed given the weight to the section.

Line 641        U.S. Bureau of Pleasance ?

Line 665        Fluke ?

                     Figure 12 is a little head to read.

the main details are shown in the next section.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions. All suggested revisions and comments were accurately incorporated and considered. Please see the attachment for the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for applying all required changes and clarifications.