HEART Hybrid Methods for Assessing Human Reliability in Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled: "HEART Hybrid Methods for Assessing Human Reliability in Coal-fired Thermal Power 2 Plant Process" deals with the important issue of human errors and mistakes in industries, especially in power plants. The manuscript could be considered for publication following the comments. 

1. Please check the English style. Please do not use contraction in academic writing (it doesn't P5L140)

2. Human reliability is somehow highly mentioned in the literature with different methods, algorithm, etc. The take-home message in the conclusion is not clear enough. Please revise the conclusion.

3. Please recommend how the methods could be used in a control strategy in the conclusion.

Thank you.

Author Response

Authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer for his valuable suggestion. All changes have made as per the suggestion of esteemed reviewer. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the human error assessment and reduction technique for assessing human reliability in coal-fired thermal power plant process. The subject is very interesting and the respective results of the applied method are satisfactory. But some points, the mathematical basis of the paper and the parameters explanation should be reinforced. More specifically:

è Equation (1) is not correct. The mathematical error with the same indices of the inverse sum of aij is obvious. But additionally it is conform to the results of lines 327-333.

è The parameters m, l, u (of equations 2, 3) are not explained.

è In line 198 “mw” should be “MW” (typographical error).

è In Table 2 in “GTT” column “F”, “H”, “E” should be explained. How have GEP values been determined? In an appendix the explanation of EPC 1 to 38 should be explained.

è The mathematical solution of lines 320 to 363 is very useful. But equations of lines 328 to 333 use different mathematical symbols than eq. (1).  Similarly, the authors should check the rest lines, e.g. parameter d’ in lines 354-360 is not obvious the connection with lines 362-363.

è Generally (in abstract, conclusions, etc.), it is not obvious if there is any theoretical contribution of the authors in the HEART application or their novelty is limited to the application and the use of 5 experts knowledge.

Author Response

Authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer for his valuable suggestion. All changes have made as per the suggestion of esteemed reviewer. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer is satisfied with authors answers.

The reviewer proposes to the authors to add the appendices A and B in their paper. It will be very usefel and it will make the paper more readable.

Author Response

Authors thank reviewer for their valuable comments. As per the suggestion of esteemed reviewer, HEART method parameters have added to article as Tablo 1 and Tablo 2.