Reviewing Interference for All Modes of Products for Failure Avoidance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been well written. However, it is not clear on the basis to determine the typical cases example chosen to demonstrate the proposed model. Therefore, it is advised to clearly describe the justification on using the three cases example.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your comment. We are attaching our reply to your
comment to the attached file.
Sincerely,
Kenji iino
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall evaluation:
The authors present an exciting work with examples of modes of failure of products. It stresses evaluating all possible failing modes to avoid unexpected interference between functions. The authors were able to turn simple the difficult task of identifying the cause of failure in the three examples presented.
Therefore, the paper might be published in the special issue of Sustainability. However, It feels the paper is scarce in showing the direct connections to Sustainability and has a minor use of Axiomatic Design (AD).
Therefore, I encourage the authors to evaluate the feasibility of improving their work with the following proposals.
Major improvements:
- Sustainability is a broad area that includes social, economic, and environmental. Any failure in an area will cause an impact on all the others. I suppose it is the hidden message of this work.
The bike example impacts the social, the train on the social and economic and the Fukushima on the social, economic, and environmental fields. Please check if you agree and change accordingly.
- Please define the design matrix for all three examples the same way you do in Eq 3. Please take conclusions regarding the train design having fewer DPs than FRs, on the last level of decomposition. Similar situations happen on higher levels on the Fukushima and bike examples.
- Please do an extra English revision- Lines 19-20; 165 need a comma; 214- 217; 315 -316; 539- 543 are hard to read.
Structure improvements:
- I would reorder the examples by bike, train, and Fukushima in a crescendo of impact. Please put all examples in a single section (3. At the end of sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4, please reveal the importance of the examples to the Sustainability subject. Please reveal it again in the discussion and conclusions.
- Pag. 10 – Section 4: Please use a standard structure to present the examples. Please use subsections in all, as in section 4, or otherwise use no subsections as in section 3. Notice that some sub-sub sections are just a paragraph.
Small improvements:
- Pag. 3. Please explain the consequences of having fewer DPs than FRs.
- Pag. 3, line 105 – I would change the word from “complex” to “complicate.”
- Pag. 5 Fig. 4 – Please identify the “torsion spring” in both left and right figures.
- Pag. 5 – Equation 3 might go after line 137 to improve readability.
- Pag. 6, line 152 – Please make it notice that Figure 7 regards a different working mode of the locking system. Please move lines 160, 161, and 162 to before Fig. 7
- Pag. 8 Fig. 9 – Please put the IC acronym close to the Isolation Condenser.
- Pag. 9 Fig. 10 – Use consistent identification of valves – ACV1, etc, instead of AC1, etc.
- Pag. 10, line 261 – It would be welcome to end with the AD design equation.
- Pag. 14, line 383 – It would be welcome to depict the AD design equation and complimentary comments.
Small correction:
- Pag. 9, line 233 – “This DC power instrument …” . Do you refer to the pressure sensor? Please take it more clear.
- Pag. 9, line 242- may change “power to this pressure sensor” to “power to the pressure sensor…”
- Pag. 9, lines 245 to 248 – Please introduce systems A and B.
- Pag. 11, line 296 – Please call Fig. 13 and explain it. Please change the figure title, including “(cars 1 to 5)” . You call car 3 later in the text, and it does not seem there at first glance.
- Pag. 11, line 315 – Please introduce “Control Line F” or change the phrase.
- Pag. 12, line 331 - Please put a space between 1,400 and °C.
- Pag. 13, Fig. 15- Cars 3 and 4 not shown or hidden- please use the cut symbol as in Fig. 13
- Pag. 15, line 442- Please define NPP.
- Pag 17 “Conclusion” is currently section 6.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your comments. We are attaching our reply to each
of your comment in the attached file.
Sincerely,
Kenji iino
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research is well structured and very interesting. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- The research results should be better explained in the abstract;
- a preliminary economic analysis would be useful, aimed at roughly determining the cost of the device;
- What are the main fields of application of the device?
- English must be checked carefully.
- referecences must be improve, eg.:
-
Systematic Human Reliability Analysis (SHRA): A New Approach to Evaluate Human Error Probability (HEP) in a Nuclear Plant
Bona, G.D., Falcone, D., Forcina, A., Silvestri, L. , -
R.A.M.S. analysis in a sintering plant by the employment of a new reliability allocation method
Falcone, D., De Felice, F., Di Bona, G., Silvestri, A. ,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for your comments. We are attaching our reply to each
of your comment in the attached file.
Sincerely,
Kenji iino
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper is ok for pubblication
