Content uploaded by Olanrewaju Sulaiman Oladokun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olanrewaju Sulaiman Oladokun on Oct 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
24
Abstract—Inland water transportation project is considered
today as one of the mitigation option available for humanity to
curb carbon footage. Collision in inland water transportation
represents the biggest treat to inland water transportation; its
occurrence is very infrequent but has grave consequence that
makes its avoidance a very imperative factor. The nature of the
threat of collision can be worrisome, as they can lead to loss of
life, damage to environment, disruption of operation, injuries,
instantaneous and point form release of harmful substance to
water, air and soil and long time ecological impact. However,
the development of complex system like inland water
transportation and collision avoidance system also needs to
meet economic sustainability for decision requirement related
to collision avoidane. This makes analysing and quantifying
occurrence scenarios, consequence of accident very imperative
for reliable and sustainable design for exercise of technocrat
stewardship of safety and safeguard of environmental. This
paper discusses the cost benefit analysis for risk control option
required for operational, societal and technological change
decision for sustainable inland water transportation system.
The paper presents the result of predictive cost for collision
aversion aversion for in River Langat waterways development.
I. INTRODUCTION
Collision risk is a product of the probability of the physical
event occurrence as well as losses that include damage, loss
of life and economic losses. Accident represent risk because
they expose vessel owners and operators as well as the public
to the possibility of losses such as vessel, cargo damage,
injuries, loss of life, environmental damage, and obstruction
of waterways. Collision accident scenarios carry heavy
consequence, thus its occurrence is infrequence. Complete
risk and reliability modelling require frequency estimation,
consequence quantification, uncertainties and cost benefit
analysis of the holistic system [1, 2]. Like the frequency and
consequence analysis, collision cost data are hard to come by,
however, whatever little data that is available should be made
meaningful as much as possible through available tools
especially system based predictive tools required for decision
support system necessary mitigation decision for sustainable
and reliable waterways. Inherently, accident data for
waterway are few that make probabilistic and stochastic
methods the best preliminary method to analyze the risk in
waterways. Other information relating to channel vessel and
environment employed in the risk process, lacking
O. Sulaiman, A.S.A. Kader, A.H., Saharuddin are University Malaysia
Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia (email:
O.sulaiman@umt.edu.my).
information about the distribution of transits during the year,
or about the joint distribution of ship size, flag particular and
environmental conditions become derivative from
probabilistic and stochastic estimation in the model. Result
from such model could further be enhanced through
simulation methods as required. This paper discusses cost
benefit analysis to support risk control option for waterways
predictive collision risk aversion model. [3, 4]
II. BACKGROUND
The case study considered for this study is Langat River,
220m long navigable inland waterway that has been
considered underutilized due to lack of use of the water
resources up to its capacity. Personal communication, survey
and river cruise on Langat River revealed that collision
remain the main threat of the waterways despite less traffic in
the waterways.. Data related to historical accidents, transits,
and environmental conditions are collected. Barge and tug of
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
parameter required for damage analysis. Vessel width
parameter plays a very important role in collision scenario
and potential damage. Vessel movement for the case under
consideration currently has no vessel separation system.
However, there is traffic movement from both inbound and
outbound navigation in the channel. The same type of barge
size is considered for the estimation work.
III. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FOR IWT
Risk and reliability based model aim to develop innovative
methods and tools to assess operational, accidental and
catastrophic scenarios. It requires accounting for the human
element, and integrates them as required into the design
environment. Risk based design entails the systematic
integration of risk analysis in the design process. It target
safety and environment risk prevention and reduction as a
design objective. To pursue this activity effectively, an
integrated design environment to facilitate and support a
holistic risk approach to ship and channel design is needed. A
total risk approaches which enable appropriate trade off for
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]:
i. Loss of propulsion
ii. Loss of navigation system
Collision Aversion Model for Inland Water
Transportation: Cost Benefit Analysis Model
O. Sulaiman, A.S.A. Kader, A.H., Saharuddin
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
25
iii. Loss of mooring function and
iv. Loss of Other accident from the ship or waterways
Risk based design entails the systematic risk analysis in the
design process targeting risk preventive reduction. It
facilitates support for total risk approach to ship and
waterways design. Integrated risk based system design
requires the availability of tools to predict the safety,
performance and system components as well as integration
and hybridisation of safety element and system lifecycle
phases. The risk process begins with definition of risk which
stands for the measure of the frequency and severity of
consequence of an unwanted event (damage, energy, oil
spill). Risk is defined as product of probability of event
occurrence and its consequence [7].
Risk (R) = Probability (P) X Consequence (C) Eq.
3.1
Incidents are unwanted events that may or may not result
to accidents. Necessary measures should be taken according
to magnitude of event and required speed of response should
be given. Accidents are unwanted events that have either
immediate or delayed consequences. Immediate
consequences variables include injuries, loss of life, property
damage, and persons in peril. Point form consequences
variables could result to further loss of life, environmental
damage and financial costs. Effective risk assessments and
analysis required three elements highlighted in the relation
below.
Risk modeling = Framework + Models + Process
Eq. 1
Reliability based verification and validation of system in
risk analysis should be followed with creation of database
and identification of novel technologies required for
implementation of sustainable system.
A. Risk Framework
Risk framework provides system description, risk
identification, criticality, ranking, impact, possible mitigation
and high level objective to provide system with what will
make it reliable. The framework development involves risk
identification which requires developing understanding the
manner in which accidents, their initiating events and their
consequences occur. Risk framework should be developed to
provide effective and sound risk assessment and analysis.
The process requires accuracy, balance, and information that
meet high scientific standards of measurement. The
information should meet requirement to get the science right
and getting the right science. The process requires targeting
interest of stakeholder including members of the port and
waterway community, public officials, regulators and
scientists. Transparency and community participation helps
ask the right questions of the science and remain important
input to the risk process, it help checks the plausibility of
assumptions and ensures that synthesis is both balanced and
informative. Employment of quantitative analysis with
required insertion of scientific and natural requirements
provide analytical process to estimate risk levels, and
evaluating whether various measures for risk are reduction
are effective[8].
B. Safety and Environmental Risk and Reliability Model
(SERM)
There is various risk and reliability tools available for risk
based methods that fall under quantitative and qualitative
analysis. Choice of best methods for reliability objective
depends on data availability, system type and purpose.
However employment of hybrid of methods of selected tool
can always give the best of what is expect of system
reliability and reduced risk.
C. SERM Process
SERM intend to address risks over the entire life of the
complex system like IWT system where the risks are high or
the potential for risk reduction is greatest. SERM address
quantitatively, accident frequency and consequence of IWT.
Other risk and reliability components including human
reliability assessment which is recommended to be carried
out separately as part of integrated risk process. Other
waterways and vessel requirement factors that are considered
in SERM model are [9]:
i. Construction
ii. Towing operations and abandonment of ship
iii. Installation, hook-up and commissioning
iv. Development and major modifications
Integrated risk based method combined various technique
as required in a process. Table 2 shows available risk based
design for techniques. This can be applied for each level of
risk. Each level can be complimented by applying causal
analysis (system linkage), expert analysis (expert rating), and
organizational analysis (Community participation) in the risk
process. Figure 3 shows SERM model and components of
cost sustainability analysis
IV. RELIABILITY AND VALIDATION ANALYSIS:
System reliability could be determined through the
following analysis [10]:
1) Standard Deviation: Accident means, variance and
standard deviation from normal distribution
2) Stochastic Analysis: Accident average and projection
rates per year calculation can be reliability projection for
the model. Poison distribution, standards distribution for
and binomial distribution could be analyzed for required
prediction and system capability. Poison distribution
involves the likelihood of observing k event in time
interval T is poison distribution.
3) Comparing the model behaviour apply to other rivers of
relative profile and vessel particular.
4) Triangulating analysis of sum of probability of failure
from subsystem level failure analysis
5) System improvement, for example Traffic Separation
Scheme (TSS) Implementation effectiveness, could
achieve reduction in head collision. This can be done
through integration of normal distribution along width of
the waterways and subsequent implementation
frequency model.
6) Comparing the model behaviour applied to other rivers
of relative profile and vessel particular
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
26
V. RISK COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RCBA) AND RISK
CONTROL OPTION MODEL PROCESS
RCBA is use to deduce mitigation, options selection and
proposed need for technology, reliability, new regulations
and sustainability required to be modeled for effective
mitigation options. RCBA involves quantification of cost
effectiveness that provides basis for decision making about
identified RCO. This includes the net or gross and
discounting values for cost of equipment, redesign and
construction, documentation, training, inspection
maintenance drills, auditing, regulation, reduced commercial
used and operational limitation (speed, loads). Benefit could
include reduced probability of fatality, injuries, serenity,
negative effects on health, severity of pollution and economic
losses. Identified types of cost and benefits for each risk
control option according to RCBA for the entities which are
influenced by each option can be deduced. And also
identification of the cost effectiveness expressed in terms of
cost per unit risk reduction [11]. 6.1
A. Risk Cost Option (RCO) and Cost Effective Analysis
(CEA)
Risk control measures are used to group risk into a limited
number of well practical regulatory and capability options.
Risk Control Option (RCO) aimed to achieve (David, 1996):
i. Preventive: reduce probability of occurrence
ii. Mitigation: reduce severity of consequence
RCO could follow the following generic approach:
i. General approach: controlling the likelihood of
initiation of accidents. be effective in preventing several
different accident sequences; and
ii. Distributed approach: control of escalation of accidents
and the possibility of influencing the later stages of escalation
of other unrelated, accidents.
The economic benefit and risk reduction ascribed to each
risk control options is be based on the event trees developed
during the risk analysis and on considerations on which
accident scenarios would be affected. Estimates on expected
downtime and repair costs in case of accidents should be
based on statistics from shipyards or responsible government
institution for repair or construction.
This CBA is then followed by assessment of the control
options as a function of their effectiveness against risk
reduction. In estimating RCO, the following are taken into
consideration:
i. DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years) or QALY
(Quality Adjusted Life Years)
ii. LQI (Life Quality Index)
iii. GCAF (Gross Cost of Averting a Fatality)
iv. NCAF (Net Cost of Averting a Fatality)
The common criteria used for estimating the cost
effectiveness of risk reduction measures are NCAF and
GCAF which can be calculated with the following equation:
Gross CAF = Eq. 2
GCAF = Eq. 3
NET CAF = Eq. 4
NCAF = GCAF – Change in Benefit Eq.
5
ICAF = Eq. 6
Where: is Reduction in annual fatality rate, is
Economic benefit resulting from implementing the risk
control option, is Risk reduction in term of averted
number of fatality implied by the risk control option.
NCAF and GCAF depend on the following criteria:
i. Observation of the willingness to pay to avert a fatality;
ii. Observation of past decisions and the costs involved
with them;
iii. Consideration of societal indicators such as the Life
Quality Index (LQI).
In RCO, It is important to address the following:
i. Primary cause or accident scenario, number of accident
ii. Number of losses, number of life loss per accident
iii. Cost of fatality per accident, average total cost per
accident
Cost per unit risk reduction (CURR) = =
Eq. 7
Where 50 minor injuries = 10 serious injuries = 1 life =
property or damage = loss or degradation of environment.
B. Net Present Value (NPV)
The NPV can be calculated from:
NPV = + ) (1+ ] Eq. 8
Where: t = Time horizon for assessment, starting in year 1,
Number of year in vessel life time, B = the sum of benefit in
period, r = the discount rate per period, Ct- sum of cost in
period.
The estimated risk is represented by:
= Accident frequency Na or P (Number of ships per
year) x Consequence C x (Cost of damage per accident) Risk
after implementation of safety measure.
= Accident frequency P (Number of ships per year) x
Consequence C x (Cost of damage per accident)
Benefit of reduced risk (R) = - Eq. 9
NPV of the benefit for estimated risk and implemented
safety measure is calculated and ratio of cost of C to benefit B
is compared and expected to be < 1.
C. Implied Cost of Averting Fatality (ICAF)
ICAF represent estimation of benefit of avoiding damage
or fatality. It plays important role in cost benefit analysis of
risk. ICAF can be estimated using the following means (DnV,
2005):
Ronold Life quality index (L) = .
Eq. 10
Where: L = life quality index, = Gross domestic product
per person per year, = Life expectancy (year), w =
Proportion of life spent in economic activities in developing
countries is approximately 1/8.
Optimal acceptable ICAF => . .
Eq. 11
Where, Social cost = NC , t<6000, Social cost =
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
27
NC , t>6000, N = number of injuries or fatalities,
C = Cost of damage per day depends on types and countries, I
= daily rate of interest, T = Duration of damage or sick leave
in day, 6000 days is equivalent with a fatality, DNV = US$ 3
million = cost effective ICAF rate = 2GBP million =
developed country. = = ½ of life expectancy, largest
change in GDP, = - y.(1-w) /2 w.
D. Damage or Loss of Life Quantification
Ship collision is rare and independent random event in
time. The event can be considered as poison events where
time to first occurrence is exponentially distributed (Emi et al,
1997).
f (t)= Eq. 12
Where: = Annual rate of exceeding of consequence
energy capacity, t = the time to the future loss
= . . . dt Eq. 13
Total cost = present value of future cost + Cost
of protective measure (Cc)
= Co +Cc Eq. 20
In prioritizing alternative under (RCBA), it is important to
address the following: Available concept, consequence
energy capacity (MJ), Return for exeedance T (Year) as well
as:
Annual rate of exeedance ( (-) Eq. 14
The cost effective risk reduction measures should be
sought in all areas. It is represented by followed:
Acceptable quotient = Benefit/ (Risk /Cost)
Eq. 15
E. Sustainability Analysis
Sustainability is defined as development work that meets
needs of the present generation without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. It
requires balancing work between technical, developments,
economic, community participation, information sharing,
environment and safety. Suitability principle calls on all
fields of human activities to review and adjust the way things
are done. At its 21st session in February 2001, the UNEP
governing council adopted a decision to investigate the
feasibility of a “Global Assessment of the State of the Marine
Environment” UNEP GC Decision 21/13 [12].
F. Decision Making
Decision making involves discussion of hazard and
associated risks, review of RCO that keep ALARP curve in
acceptable region, compare and rank RCO based on
associated cost and benefit. It also involves specification of
recommendation for decision makers towards beyond
compliance preparedness. And rulemaking tools for
regulatory bodies towards measures and contribution for
sustainable system design. RCO provide measures, outcome
of objective comparison of alternative option, and
subsequent contribution recommendation for sustainable
implementation need of the system intactness, the planet and
the right of future generation.
VI. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. ALARP risk curve for changing
Figure 4a shows accident consequence accident energy
and accident occurrence frequency against all waterway
parameters, the meeting pint signify the optimum operating
point. But that need to be investigated if it is cost effective.
B. Identified Risk Control Options to Reduce the Collision,
Grounding and Contact
RCO for each collision situation has to be more clearly
defined. In order to identify new RCO, generated result from
the analysis of frequency and consequence, cost and benefit
is weighted. It is important to support this with expert rating
to contribute to possible risk prioritisation control options for
IWT of on Sungai Langat. The descriptions of the major
hazards and corresponding risk control options from the
hazard identification and the results from the risk analysis
which are summarised could be presented to the group of
experts for further validation. From the risk study, prioritized
RCO that were selected for further evaluation in terms of cost
effectiveness assessment are discussed in the next paragraph.
Even thus this research is about collision, the impact to
collision is not far from contact and grounding collision
scenario. Therefore some of the measure that will be taken
could benefit curbing accident from contact and grounding.
The main RCO`S are:
i.Improved navigational safety.
ii. Redundant propulsion system: two shaft lines.
iii.Required maintenance plan for critical items as well
design requirement for increase double hull width, increase
double bottom depth or increase hull strength.
iv.Human factor and human reliability is quite critical in
risk work, it need to be done separately.
C. RCO 1: Improved Navigational Safety
Improved navigational safety can be achieved in a number
of different ways. From various identified risk control
options, five cost effective risk control options for navigation
improvement that could potentially reduce the frequency of
collision and grounding which are:
i. TSS
ii. ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information
System), track control system,
iii. AIS (Automatic Identification System) integration with
radar
ivImproved bridge design
The risk control options related to navigational safety in
the list above might be promising alternatives for Langat
River. The cost effectiveness of implementing this measure
for Langat River is evaluated in this study. Hence, the risk
control option for improved navigational safety is defined as
implementation of one or more of the above alternatives.
Installation of valve control radar can reduce risk of oil spill
due to overfilling, malfunction of a valve or human failure
among other causes. The levels of storage tanks on board
must be continuously monitored since overfilling or product
discharge on deck could have consequences for human life
and for property.
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
28
D. RCO 2: Redundant Propulsion System
Machinery failure is a significant causal factor in collision
accident. Collision can be avoided if the ships had redundant
propulsion or steering systems. The redundant propulsion
and steering system must ensure that, irrespective of the
ship’s loading condition, when a failure in a propulsion or
steering system occurs:
i. The maneuverability of the ship can be maintained.
ii. A minimum speed can be maintained to keep the ship
under control.
iii. The ship can maintain operation with a redundant
propulsion or steering system so that a vessel can ride out the
storm or slow navigation in port.
iv. The propulsion and steering functions are quickly re
established.
Cost effectiveness assessment for redundant propulsion
systems will be achieved by installation of independent
engines and two shaft lines. The use of all electric propulsion
could be a good advantage for optional navigation mode.
This would also have effect on different hull forms compared
to ships with single propellers.
E. RCO 3: Human Capital Development
Discussion with waterways authority revealed that only
the captain’s qualification and competency is being screened
and regulated. It is recommended to institutional screen on
certification and competency of all officers on the vessels and
to undergo simulation for normalization of behavior. This
risk control option aims at increasing the bridge team’s
ability to handle difficult maneuvering tasks and crisis
situations by increased use of simulator training. The effect
of such training could provide better navigational safety and
a reduced risk of collision, grounding and contact events. The
simulator training could be specially designed for particular
port environments, underwater topography, and particular
bridge layouts on specific vessels and would give the
participants exercises in handling challenging situations from
different positions of the bridge team. Important parts in such
exercises might be passage planning, situation awareness and
operation during malfunction of critical technical equipment.
The risk control option suggested herein goes beyond the
basic training requirements defined by IMO’s International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW), (IMO, 1996).
F. Sustainability Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of
Selected RCOs
Risk Cost Benefit Analysis to deduce and proposed need
for new regulations based on mitigation and options selection.
RCBA involve quantification of cost effectiveness that
provides basis for decision making about RCO identified,
this include the net or gross and discounting values.
Consideration is also given to cost of equipment, redesign
and construction, documentation, training, inspection
maintenance, auditing, regulation, reduced commercial used,
operational limitation like speed and loads. Benefit could
include reduced probability of fatality, injuries, serenity,
negative effects on health, severity of pollution, economic
losses.
Cost work is model in different way, and translation of
quantity is allowed between benefit, damage, oils spill,
fatality. For this case, based on estimate on the level of
damage, 1 fatality is considered due to frequency of accident.
Figure 5a show that at minimum energy of 20MJ, less 700,
000 RM gross costs will be required to avert fatality.
Whereas, at 400 MJ energy of impact 2.07 million RM gross
cost will be required to avert fatality. Figure 5c shows that
731000 RM will be ICAF required at minimum accident
energy released of 20MJ while, 2.53 million will be the ICAF
of released energy of 453MJ. Figure 5b shows that 1.47
million net cost will be required to avert fatality at minimum
energy of 20MJ, 2,8 million RM will be required to avert
fatality at catastrophic accident energy of 453MJ. Figure 7
depicts the cost of losses per accident causal factors.
Propulsion failure carry the highest (RM 2,000,000) follow
by loss of navigation function which require about RM 700,
000 and about 400, 000 will be require to fix human error
problem. These costs are still acceptable as long as they are
less than 3 million.
All numbers are based on introduction of one RCO.
Introduction of more than one RCO will lead to higher NCAF
and GCAFs for other RCOs addressing the same risks. High
GCAF and NCAF values indicate that the considered RCO is
not a cost effective measure. A negative NCAF indicates that
the RCO is economically beneficial in itself, For example the
costs of implementing the RCO are less than the economical
benefit of implementing it. From the Figure, number of
accident and loss of life are considered low. According to
current practice within IMO and selected criteria for this
study, a risk control option will be regarded as cost effective
if it is associated with GCAF ≤ USD 3 million or NCAF ≤
USD 3 million. Cost effective measures that can be
demonstrated to have a high potential for risk reduction will
consequently be recommended for implementation. ICAF
represent estimation of benefit of avoiding damage or fatality
and it ply important role in cost benefit analysis of risk. This
can be estimated using the following means.
G. Sustainability
Figure 6 show it cost much more to implement navigation
and machineries failure system. The maximum cost is
indicated by the point where the total cost (Ct), the present
value of loss, and NPV coincide, about RM30 million, where
the cost of unit risk reduction still stand at about RM2000,
000. Figure 222 shows cross plot of the risk level and optimal
cost require for the channel maintenance. From this Figure it
is observed by spending more than 50Million, high speed
craft or freighter of 35 knot will be able to navigate on Langat
River in future. According to recent discussion with Langat
River, a decision is already made no pass the bridge over the
river. Therefore for Langat River that need to be included in
analysis, but benefit could be quantify into cost.
REFERENCES
[1] DnV. Formal Safety Assessment of cruise navigation. DNV Report No.
2003-0277, Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway. Norway, 2005
[2] Kite, Powell, H. L., D. Jin N. M. Patrikalis, J. Jebsen, V.
Papakonstantinou. Formulation of a Model for Ship Transit Risk. MIT
Sea Grant Technical Report. Cambridge, MA. 1996. 96-19.
[3] Skjong, R., Vanem, E., Endresen, Ø. Risk. Evaluation Criteria.
SAFEDOR report D. 2006.
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
29
[4] Lempert, R. J., S. W. Popper and S. C. Bankes. Shaping the Next One
Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative Long-Term Policy
Analysis. RAND:Santa Monica, CA. 2003. pp. 187.
[5] Roach, P.J. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and
Engineering. Hermosa Publishers. Albuquerque. NM, 1998.
[6] Coleman, H.W., W.G. Steele, Jr. Experimentation and Uncertainty
Analysis for Engineers. John Wiley & Sons. 1989.
[7] Kitamura, O. FEM approach to the simulation of collision and
grounding damage. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on
Collision and Grounding of Ships July 2001, pp. 125-136 (Maritime
Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical
University of Denmark).
[8] Axtell, R., R. Axelrod, J. Epstein and M. D. Cohen. Aligning
Simulation Models: A Case Study and Results. Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory. 1996. pp123-141.
[9] Yacov T. Haimes. Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management. John
Wiley & Sons, INC. Canada. 1998. pp. 159 - 187.
[10] N. Soares, C. A. P. Teixeira. Risk Assessment in Maritime
Transportation. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 74:3, 2001,
299-309.
[11] Fujii, Y. and Mizuki, N. Design of VTS system for water with bridges.
In Proceedings of Ship Collision Analysis (Eds H. Gluver and D.
Olsen), 1998, pp. 177-190 (Balkema, Rotterdam).
[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
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
30
a.Serm model b. Cost benefit sustainability analysis
Figure 3: Risk and Reliability model flowcharts
Fa
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.2E+06
9.3E+06
3.1E+07
7.4E+07
1.5E+08
2.5E+08
4.0E+08
6.0E+08
8.5E+08
1.2E+09
1.5E+09
2.0E+09
2.6E+09
3.2E+09
3.9E+09
Ca :- Accident Energy
Fa :-Expected number of collIsion per year
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
Fa :-Expected number of collIsion per year
V=+1 v=+1
BLWM Nm=+1
Nm=+1
Figure 4: Accident energy Vs consequence energy
Figure 5: a. NCAF b.ICAF c.GCAF
International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.1, February, 2011
2010-023X
31
Figure 6: Cost of losses per accident causal factors, Figure: 20: RCO`s analysis for total cost of damage
Co Cc & Ct vs Fa
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
200000000
250000000
2.80E-05
3.14E-05
3.51E-05
3.89E-05
4.29E-05
4.71E-05
5.16E-05
5.62E-05
6.10E-05
6.60E-05
7.13E-05
7.67E-05
8.23E-05
8.81E-05
9.41E-05
1.00E-04
1.07E-04
1.13E-04
1.20E-04
1.27E-04
1.34E-04
1.42E-04
1.49E-04
1.57E-04
1.65E-04
Cost
Co
Cc
Ct
Figure 7: Risk cost benefit analysis