Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Risk cost benefit analysis of colision aversion model 74 f493

427

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
427
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X Collision Aversion Model for Inland Water Transportation: Cost Benefit Analysis Model O. Sulaiman, A.S.A. Kader, A.H., Saharuddin information about the distribution of transits during the year, Abstract—Inland water transportation project is considered or about the joint distribution of ship size, flag particular andtoday as one of the mitigation option available for humanity to environmental conditions become derivative fromcurb carbon footage. Collision in inland water transportation probabilistic and stochastic estimation in the model. Resultrepresents the biggest treat to inland water transportation; itsoccurrence is very infrequent but has grave consequence that from such model could further be enhanced throughmakes its avoidance a very imperative factor. The nature of the simulation methods as required. This paper discusses costthreat of collision can be worrisome, as they can lead to loss of benefit analysis to support risk control option for waterwayslife, damage to environment, disruption of operation, injuries, predictive collision risk aversion model. [3, 4]instantaneous and point form release of harmful substance towater, air and soil and long time ecological impact. However,the development of complex system like inland water II. BACKGROUNDtransportation and collision avoidance system also needs tomeet economic sustainability for decision requirement related The case study considered for this study is Langat River,to collision avoidane. This makes analysing and quantifying 220m long navigable inland waterway that has beenoccurrence scenarios, consequence of accident very imperative considered underutilized due to lack of use of the waterfor reliable and sustainable design for exercise of technocrat resources up to its capacity. Personal communication, surveystewardship of safety and safeguard of environmental. Thispaper discusses the cost benefit analysis for risk control option and river cruise on Langat River revealed that collisionrequired for operational, societal and technological change remain the main threat of the waterways despite less traffic indecision for sustainable inland water transportation system. the waterways.. Data related to historical accidents, transits,The paper presents the result of predictive cost for collision and environmental conditions are collected. Barge and tug ofaversion aversion for in River Langat waterways development. capacity 5000T and 2000T are currently plying this waterway at draft of 9 and 15 respectively. Safety associated with small craft is not taken into account. Figure 1 and 2 channel width I. INTRODUCTION parameter required for damage analysis. Vessel width Collision risk is a product of the probability of the physical parameter plays a very important role in collision scenarioevent occurrence as well as losses that include damage, loss and potential damage. Vessel movement for the case underof life and economic losses. Accident represent risk because consideration currently has no vessel separation system.they expose vessel owners and operators as well as the public However, there is traffic movement from both inbound andto the possibility of losses such as vessel, cargo damage, outbound navigation in the channel. The same type of bargeinjuries, loss of life, environmental damage, and obstruction size is considered for the estimation work.of waterways. Collision accident scenarios carry heavyconsequence, thus its occurrence is infrequence. Completerisk and reliability modelling require frequency estimation, III. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FOR IWTconsequence quantification, uncertainties and cost benefit Risk and reliability based model aim to develop innovativeanalysis of the holistic system [1, 2]. Like the frequency and methods and tools to assess operational, accidental andconsequence analysis, collision cost data are hard to come by, catastrophic scenarios. It requires accounting for the humanhowever, whatever little data that is available should be made element, and integrates them as required into the designmeaningful as much as possible through available tools environment. Risk based design entails the systematicespecially system based predictive tools required for decision integration of risk analysis in the design process. It targetsupport system necessary mitigation decision for sustainable safety and environment risk prevention and reduction as aand reliable waterways. Inherently, accident data for design objective. To pursue this activity effectively, anwaterway are few that make probabilistic and stochastic integrated design environment to facilitate and support amethods the best preliminary method to analyze the risk in holistic risk approach to ship and channel design is needed. Awaterways. Other information relating to channel vessel and total risk approaches which enable appropriate trade off forenvironment employed in the risk process, lacking advanced sustainable decision making. Waterways accident falls under scenario of collision, fire and explosion, flooding, grounding. Collision carries the highest percentage, more frequent it is cause by [5,6]: O. Sulaiman, A.S.A. Kader, A.H., Saharuddin are University MalaysiaTerengganu, 21030, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia (email: i. Loss of propulsionO.sulaiman@umt.edu.my). ii. Loss of navigation system 24
  • 2. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X iii. Loss of mooring function and B. Safety and Environmental Risk and Reliability Model iv. Loss of Other accident from the ship or waterways (SERM) Risk based design entails the systematic risk analysis in the There is various risk and reliability tools available for riskdesign process targeting risk preventive reduction. It based methods that fall under quantitative and qualitativefacilitates support for total risk approach to ship and analysis. Choice of best methods for reliability objectivewaterways design. Integrated risk based system design depends on data availability, system type and purpose.requires the availability of tools to predict the safety, However employment of hybrid of methods of selected toolperformance and system components as well as integration can always give the best of what is expect of systemand hybridisation of safety element and system lifecycle reliability and reduced risk.phases. The risk process begins with definition of risk whichstands for the measure of the frequency and severity of C. SERM Processconsequence of an unwanted event (damage, energy, oil SERM intend to address risks over the entire life of thespill). Risk is defined as product of probability of event complex system like IWT system where the risks are high oroccurrence and its consequence [7]. the potential for risk reduction is greatest. SERM address Risk (R) = Probability (P) X Consequence (C) Eq. quantitatively, accident frequency and consequence of IWT.3.1 Other risk and reliability components including human Incidents are unwanted events that may or may not result reliability assessment which is recommended to be carriedto accidents. Necessary measures should be taken according out separately as part of integrated risk process. Otherto magnitude of event and required speed of response should waterways and vessel requirement factors that are consideredbe given. Accidents are unwanted events that have either in SERM model are [9]:immediate or delayed consequences. Immediate i. Constructionconsequences variables include injuries, loss of life, property ii. Towing operations and abandonment of shipdamage, and persons in peril. Point form consequences iii. Installation, hook-up and commissioningvariables could result to further loss of life, environmental iv. Development and major modificationsdamage and financial costs. Effective risk assessments and Integrated risk based method combined various techniqueanalysis required three elements highlighted in the relation as required in a process. Table 2 shows available risk basedbelow. design for techniques. This can be applied for each level of Risk modeling = Framework + Models + Process risk. Each level can be complimented by applying causal Eq. 1 analysis (system linkage), expert analysis (expert rating), and Reliability based verification and validation of system in organizational analysis (Community participation) in the riskrisk analysis should be followed with creation of database process. Figure 3 shows SERM model and components ofand identification of novel technologies required for cost sustainability analysisimplementation of sustainable system. A. Risk Framework IV. RELIABILITY AND VALIDATION ANALYSIS: Risk framework provides system description, risk System reliability could be determined through theidentification, criticality, ranking, impact, possible mitigation following analysis [10]:and high level objective to provide system with what will 1) Standard Deviation: Accident means, variance andmake it reliable. The framework development involves risk standard deviation from normal distributionidentification which requires developing understanding the 2) Stochastic Analysis: Accident average and projectionmanner in which accidents, their initiating events and their rates per year calculation can be reliability projection forconsequences occur. Risk framework should be developed to the model. Poison distribution, standards distribution forprovide effective and sound risk assessment and analysis. and binomial distribution could be analyzed for requiredThe process requires accuracy, balance, and information that prediction and system capability. Poison distributionmeet high scientific standards of measurement. The involves the likelihood of observing k event in timeinformation should meet requirement to get the science right interval T is poison distribution.and getting the right science. The process requires targeting 3) Comparing the model behaviour apply to other rivers ofinterest of stakeholder including members of the port and relative profile and vessel particular.waterway community, public officials, regulators and 4) Triangulating analysis of sum of probability of failurescientists. Transparency and community participation helps from subsystem level failure analysisask the right questions of the science and remain important 5) System improvement, for example Traffic Separationinput to the risk process, it help checks the plausibility of Scheme (TSS) Implementation effectiveness, couldassumptions and ensures that synthesis is both balanced and achieve reduction in head collision. This can be doneinformative. Employment of quantitative analysis with through integration of normal distribution along width ofrequired insertion of scientific and natural requirements the waterways and subsequent implementationprovide analytical process to estimate risk levels, and frequency model.evaluating whether various measures for risk are reduction 6) Comparing the model behaviour applied to other riversare effective[8]. of relative profile and vessel particular 25
  • 3. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X V. RISK COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RCBA) AND RISK NCAF = GCAF – Change in Benefit Eq. CONTROL OPTION MODEL PROCESS 5 RCBA is use to deduce mitigation, options selection and ICAF = Eq. 6proposed need for technology, reliability, new regulations Where: is Reduction in annual fatality rate, isand sustainability required to be modeled for effectivemitigation options. RCBA involves quantification of cost Economic benefit resulting from implementing the riskeffectiveness that provides basis for decision making about control option, is Risk reduction in term of avertedidentified RCO. This includes the net or gross and number of fatality implied by the risk control option.discounting values for cost of equipment, redesign and NCAF and GCAF depend on the following criteria:construction, documentation, training, inspection i. Observation of the willingness to pay to avert a fatality;maintenance drills, auditing, regulation, reduced commercial ii. Observation of past decisions and the costs involvedused and operational limitation (speed, loads). Benefit could with them;include reduced probability of fatality, injuries, serenity, iii. Consideration of societal indicators such as the Lifenegative effects on health, severity of pollution and economic Quality Index (LQI).losses. Identified types of cost and benefits for each risk In RCO, It is important to address the following:control option according to RCBA for the entities which are i. Primary cause or accident scenario, number of accidentinfluenced by each option can be deduced. And also ii. Number of losses, number of life loss per accidentidentification of the cost effectiveness expressed in terms of iii. Cost of fatality per accident, average total cost percost per unit risk reduction [11]. 6.1 accident A. Risk Cost Option (RCO) and Cost Effective Analysis Cost per unit risk reduction (CURR) = = (CEA) Eq. 7 Risk control measures are used to group risk into a limitednumber of well practical regulatory and capability options. Where 50 minor injuries = 10 serious injuries = 1 life =Risk Control Option (RCO) aimed to achieve (David, 1996): property or damage = loss or degradation of environment. i. Preventive: reduce probability of occurrence B. Net Present Value (NPV) ii. Mitigation: reduce severity of consequence The NPV can be calculated from: NPV = + ) (1+ ] Eq. 8 RCO could follow the following generic approach: i. General approach: controlling the likelihood of Where: t = Time horizon for assessment, starting in year 1,initiation of accidents. be effective in preventing several Number of year in vessel life time, B = the sum of benefit indifferent accident sequences; and period, r = the discount rate per period, Ct- sum of cost in ii. Distributed approach: control of escalation of accidents period.and the possibility of influencing the later stages of escalation The estimated risk is represented by:of other unrelated, accidents. = Accident frequency Na or P (Number of ships per The economic benefit and risk reduction ascribed to each year) x Consequence C x (Cost of damage per accident) Riskrisk control options is be based on the event trees developed after implementation of safety measure.during the risk analysis and on considerations on which = Accident frequency P (Number of ships per year) xaccident scenarios would be affected. Estimates on expected Consequence C x (Cost of damage per accident)downtime and repair costs in case of accidents should be Benefit of reduced risk (R) = - Eq. 9based on statistics from shipyards or responsible government NPV of the benefit for estimated risk and implementedinstitution for repair or construction. safety measure is calculated and ratio of cost of C to benefit B This CBA is then followed by assessment of the control is compared and expected to be < 1.options as a function of their effectiveness against riskreduction. In estimating RCO, the following are taken into C. Implied Cost of Averting Fatality (ICAF)consideration: ICAF represent estimation of benefit of avoiding damage i. DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years) or QALY or fatality. It plays important role in cost benefit analysis of(Quality Adjusted Life Years) risk. ICAF can be estimated using the following means (DnV, ii. LQI (Life Quality Index) 2005): iii. GCAF (Gross Cost of Averting a Fatality) Ronold Life quality index (L) = . iv. NCAF (Net Cost of Averting a Fatality) Eq. 10 The common criteria used for estimating the cost Where: L = life quality index, = Gross domestic producteffectiveness of risk reduction measures are NCAF andGCAF which can be calculated with the following equation: per person per year, = Life expectancy (year), w = Proportion of life spent in economic activities in developing Gross CAF = Eq. 2 countries is approximately 1/8. GCAF = Eq. 3 Optimal acceptable ICAF => . . NET CAF = Eq. 4 Eq. 11 Where, Social cost = NC , t<6000, Social cost = 26
  • 4. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023XNC , t>6000, N = number of injuries or fatalities, VI. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONC = Cost of damage per day depends on types and countries, I A. ALARP risk curve for changing= daily rate of interest, T = Duration of damage or sick leavein day, 6000 days is equivalent with a fatality, DNV = US$ 3 Figure 4a shows accident consequence accident energymillion = cost effective ICAF rate = 2GBP million = and accident occurrence frequency against all waterway parameters, the meeting pint signify the optimum operatingdeveloped country. = = ½ of life expectancy, largest point. But that need to be investigated if it is cost effective.change in GDP, = - y.(1-w) /2 w. B. Identified Risk Control Options to Reduce the Collision, D. Damage or Loss of Life Quantification Grounding and Contact Ship collision is rare and independent random event in RCO for each collision situation has to be more clearlytime. The event can be considered as poison events where defined. In order to identify new RCO, generated result fromtime to first occurrence is exponentially distributed (Emi et al, the analysis of frequency and consequence, cost and benefit1997). is weighted. It is important to support this with expert rating f (t)= Eq. 12 to contribute to possible risk prioritisation control options for IWT of on Sungai Langat. The descriptions of the major Where: = Annual rate of exceeding of consequence hazards and corresponding risk control options from theenergy capacity, t = the time to the future loss hazard identification and the results from the risk analysis = . . . dt Eq. 13 which are summarised could be presented to the group of Total cost = present value of future cost + Cost experts for further validation. From the risk study, prioritized RCO that were selected for further evaluation in terms of costof protective measure (Cc) effectiveness assessment are discussed in the next paragraph. = Co +Cc Eq. 20 Even thus this research is about collision, the impact to In prioritizing alternative under (RCBA), it is important to collision is not far from contact and grounding collisionaddress the following: Available concept, consequence scenario. Therefore some of the measure that will be takenenergy capacity (MJ), Return for exeedance T (Year) as well could benefit curbing accident from contact and grounding.as: The main RCO`S are: Annual rate of exeedance ( (-) Eq. 14 i.Improved navigational safety. ii. Redundant propulsion system: two shaft lines. The cost effective risk reduction measures should be iii.Required maintenance plan for critical items as wellsought in all areas. It is represented by followed: design requirement for increase double hull width, increaseAcceptable quotient = Benefit/ (Risk /Cost) double bottom depth or increase hull strength. Eq. 15 iv.Human factor and human reliability is quite critical in E. Sustainability Analysis risk work, it need to be done separately. Sustainability is defined as development work that meets C. RCO 1: Improved Navigational Safetyneeds of the present generation without compromising the Improved navigational safety can be achieved in a numberability of the future generations to meet their own needs. It of different ways. From various identified risk controlrequires balancing work between technical, developments, options, five cost effective risk control options for navigationeconomic, community participation, information sharing, improvement that could potentially reduce the frequency ofenvironment and safety. Suitability principle calls on all collision and grounding which are:fields of human activities to review and adjust the way things i. TSSare done. At its 21st session in February 2001, the UNEP ii. ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Informationgoverning council adopted a decision to investigate the System), track control system,feasibility of a “Global Assessment of the State of the Marine iii. AIS (Automatic Identification System) integration withEnvironment” UNEP GC Decision 21/13 [12]. radar F. Decision Making ivImproved bridge design Decision making involves discussion of hazard and The risk control options related to navigational safety inassociated risks, review of RCO that keep ALARP curve in the list above might be promising alternatives for Langatacceptable region, compare and rank RCO based on River. The cost effectiveness of implementing this measureassociated cost and benefit. It also involves specification of for Langat River is evaluated in this study. Hence, the riskrecommendation for decision makers towards beyond control option for improved navigational safety is defined ascompliance preparedness. And rulemaking tools for implementation of one or more of the above alternatives.regulatory bodies towards measures and contribution for Installation of valve control radar can reduce risk of oil spillsustainable system design. RCO provide measures, outcome due to overfilling, malfunction of a valve or human failureof objective comparison of alternative option, and among other causes. The levels of storage tanks on boardsubsequent contribution recommendation for sustainable must be continuously monitored since overfilling or productimplementation need of the system intactness, the planet and discharge on deck could have consequences for human lifethe right of future generation. and for property. 27
  • 5. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X D. RCO 2: Redundant Propulsion System quantity is allowed between benefit, damage, oils spill, Machinery failure is a significant causal factor in collision fatality. For this case, based on estimate on the level ofaccident. Collision can be avoided if the ships had redundant damage, 1 fatality is considered due to frequency of accident.propulsion or steering systems. The redundant propulsion Figure 5a show that at minimum energy of 20MJ, less 700,and steering system must ensure that, irrespective of the 000 RM gross costs will be required to avert fatality.ship’s loading condition, when a failure in a propulsion or Whereas, at 400 MJ energy of impact 2.07 million RM grosssteering system occurs: cost will be required to avert fatality. Figure 5c shows that i. The maneuverability of the ship can be maintained. 731000 RM will be ICAF required at minimum accident ii. A minimum speed can be maintained to keep the ship energy released of 20MJ while, 2.53 million will be the ICAFunder control. of released energy of 453MJ. Figure 5b shows that 1.47 iii. The ship can maintain operation with a redundant million net cost will be required to avert fatality at minimumpropulsion or steering system so that a vessel can ride out the energy of 20MJ, 2,8 million RM will be required to avertstorm or slow navigation in port. fatality at catastrophic accident energy of 453MJ. Figure 7 iv. The propulsion and steering functions are quickly re depicts the cost of losses per accident causal factors.established. Propulsion failure carry the highest (RM 2,000,000) follow Cost effectiveness assessment for redundant propulsion by loss of navigation function which require about RM 700,systems will be achieved by installation of independent 000 and about 400, 000 will be require to fix human errorengines and two shaft lines. The use of all electric propulsion problem. These costs are still acceptable as long as they arecould be a good advantage for optional navigation mode. less than 3 million.This would also have effect on different hull forms compared All numbers are based on introduction of one RCO.to ships with single propellers. Introduction of more than one RCO will lead to higher NCAF and GCAFs for other RCOs addressing the same risks. High E. RCO 3: Human Capital Development GCAF and NCAF values indicate that the considered RCO is Discussion with waterways authority revealed that only not a cost effective measure. A negative NCAF indicates thatthe captain’s qualification and competency is being screened the RCO is economically beneficial in itself, For example theand regulated. It is recommended to institutional screen on costs of implementing the RCO are less than the economicalcertification and competency of all officers on the vessels and benefit of implementing it. From the Figure, number ofto undergo simulation for normalization of behavior. This accident and loss of life are considered low. According torisk control option aims at increasing the bridge team’s current practice within IMO and selected criteria for thisability to handle difficult maneuvering tasks and crisis study, a risk control option will be regarded as cost effectivesituations by increased use of simulator training. The effect if it is associated with GCAF ≤ USD 3 million or NCAF ≤of such training could provide better navigational safety and USD 3 million. Cost effective measures that can bea reduced risk of collision, grounding and contact events. The demonstrated to have a high potential for risk reduction willsimulator training could be specially designed for particular consequently be recommended for implementation. ICAFport environments, underwater topography, and particular represent estimation of benefit of avoiding damage or fatalitybridge layouts on specific vessels and would give the and it ply important role in cost benefit analysis of risk. Thisparticipants exercises in handling challenging situations from can be estimated using the following means.different positions of the bridge team. Important parts in suchexercises might be passage planning, situation awareness and G. Sustainabilityoperation during malfunction of critical technical equipment. Figure 6 show it cost much more to implement navigationThe risk control option suggested herein goes beyond the and machineries failure system. The maximum cost isbasic training requirements defined by IMO’s International indicated by the point where the total cost (Ct), the presentConvention on Standards of Training, Certification and value of loss, and NPV coincide, about RM30 million, whereWatch keeping for Seafarers (STCW), (IMO, 1996). the cost of unit risk reduction still stand at about RM2000, 000. Figure 222 shows cross plot of the risk level and optimal F. Sustainability Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of cost require for the channel maintenance. From this Figure it Selected RCOs is observed by spending more than 50Million, high speed Risk Cost Benefit Analysis to deduce and proposed need craft or freighter of 35 knot will be able to navigate on Langatfor new regulations based on mitigation and options selection. River in future. According to recent discussion with LangatRCBA involve quantification of cost effectiveness that River, a decision is already made no pass the bridge over theprovides basis for decision making about RCO identified, river. Therefore for Langat River that need to be included inthis include the net or gross and discounting values. analysis, but benefit could be quantify into cost.Consideration is also given to cost of equipment, redesignand construction, documentation, training, inspection REFERENCESmaintenance, auditing, regulation, reduced commercial used, [1] DnV. Formal Safety Assessment of cruise navigation. DNV Report No.operational limitation like speed and loads. Benefit could 2003-0277, Det Norske Veritas, Hø vik, Norway. Norway, 2005include reduced probability of fatality, injuries, serenity, [2] Kite, Powell, H. L., D. Jin N. M. Patrikalis, J. Jebsen, V. Papakonstantinou. Formulation of a Model for Ship Transit Risk. MITnegative effects on health, severity of pollution, economic Sea Grant Technical Report. Cambridge, MA. 1996. 96-19.losses. [3] Skjong, R., Vanem, E., Endresen, Ø. Risk. Evaluation Criteria. Cost work is model in different way, and translation of SAFEDOR report D. 2006. 28
  • 6. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X[4] Lempert, R. J., S. W. Popper and S. C. Bankes. Shaping the Next One [8] Axtell, R., R. Axelrod, J. Epstein and M. D. Cohen. Aligning Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative Long-Term Policy Simulation Models: A Case Study and Results. Computational and Analysis. RAND:Santa Monica, CA. 2003. pp. 187. Mathematical Organization Theory. 1996. pp123-141.[5] Roach, P.J. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and [9] Yacov T. Haimes. Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management. John Engineering. Hermosa Publishers. Albuquerque. NM, 1998. Wiley & Sons, INC. Canada. 1998. pp. 159 - 187.[6] Coleman, H.W., W.G. Steele, Jr. Experimentation and Uncertainty [10] N. Soares, C. A. P. Teixeira. Risk Assessment in Maritime Analysis for Engineers. John Wiley & Sons. 1989. Transportation. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 74:3, 2001,[7] Kitamura, O. FEM approach to the simulation of collision and 299-309. grounding damage. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on [11] Fujii, Y. and Mizuki, N. Design of VTS system for water with bridges. Collision and Grounding of Ships July 2001, pp. 125-136 (Maritime In Proceedings of Ship Collision Analysis (Eds H. Gluver and D. Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical Olsen), 1998, pp. 177-190 (Balkema, Rotterdam). University of Denmark). [12] Camm, Jeffrey D. & Evans, James R. Management Science &Decision Technology. South-Western College Publishing, 2000. Figure 1: Langat vessel particular Figure 2: Accidents at Langat TABLE 1: RISK BASED DESIGN TECHNIQUES 29
  • 7. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X a.Serm model b. Cost benefit sustainability analysis Figure 3: Risk and Reliability model flowcharts Fa 1.E+00 1.E+00 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 2E 3E 1E 4E 5E 5E 0E 0E 5E 2E 5E 0E 6E 2E 9E 1. 9. 3. 7. 1. 2. 4. 6. 8. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 1.E-01 1.E-01 Fa :-Expected number of collIsion per yearFa :-Expected number of collIsion per year 1.E-02 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-05 1.E-06 V=+1 v=+1 BLWM Nm=+1 Nm=+1 1.E-06 1.E-07 Ca :- Accident Energy Figure 4: Accident energy Vs consequence energy Figure 5: a. NCAF b.ICAF c.GCAF 30
  • 8. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011 2010-023X Figure 6: Cost of losses per accident causal factors, Figure: 20: RCO`s analysis for total cost of damage Co Cc & Ct vs Fa 250000000 200000000 150000000Cost Co Cc 100000000 Ct 50000000 0 14 5 51 5 89 5 29 5 71 5 16 5 62 5 10 5 60 5 13 5 67 5 23 5 81 5 41 5 00 5 07 4 13 4 20 4 27 4 34 4 42 4 49 4 57 4 65 4 4 3. -0 3. -0 3. -0 4. -0 4. -0 5. -0 5. -0 6. -0 6. -0 7. -0 7. -0 8. -0 8. -0 9. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 1. -0 -0 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 80 2. Figure 7: Risk cost benefit analysis 31

×