Risk cost benefit analysis of colision aversion model 74 f493

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 and
today as one of the mitigation option available for humanity to environmental conditions become derivative from
curb carbon footage. Collision in inland water transportation probabilistic and stochastic estimation in the model. Result
represents the biggest treat to inland water transportation; its
occurrence is very infrequent but has grave consequence that
from such model could further be enhanced through
makes its avoidance a very imperative factor. The nature of the simulation methods as required. This paper discusses cost
threat of collision can be worrisome, as they can lead to loss of benefit analysis to support risk control option for waterways
life, damage to environment, disruption of operation, injuries, predictive collision risk aversion model. [3, 4]
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
II. BACKGROUND
transportation and collision avoidance system also needs to
meet 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 been
occurrence scenarios, consequence of accident very imperative considered underutilized due to lack of use of the water
for reliable and sustainable design for exercise of technocrat
resources up to its capacity. Personal communication, survey
stewardship of safety and safeguard of environmental. This
paper discusses the cost benefit analysis for risk control option and river cruise on Langat River revealed that collision
required for operational, societal and technological change remain the main threat of the waterways despite less traffic in
decision 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 of
aversion 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 scenario
event occurrence as well as losses that include damage, loss and potential damage. Vessel movement for the case under
of 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 and
to the possibility of losses such as vessel, cargo damage, outbound navigation in the channel. The same type of barge
injuries, loss of life, environmental damage, and obstruction size is considered for the estimation work.
of waterways. Collision accident scenarios carry heavy
consequence, thus its occurrence is infrequence. Complete
risk and reliability modelling require frequency estimation, III. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FOR IWT
consequence quantification, uncertainties and cost benefit Risk and reliability based model aim to develop innovative
analysis of the holistic system [1, 2]. Like the frequency and methods and tools to assess operational, accidental and
consequence analysis, collision cost data are hard to come by, catastrophic scenarios. It requires accounting for the human
however, whatever little data that is available should be made element, and integrates them as required into the design
meaningful as much as possible through available tools environment. Risk based design entails the systematic
especially system based predictive tools required for decision integration of risk analysis in the design process. It target
support system necessary mitigation decision for sustainable safety and environment risk prevention and reduction as a
and reliable waterways. Inherently, accident data for design objective. To pursue this activity effectively, an
waterway are few that make probabilistic and stochastic integrated design environment to facilitate and support a
methods the best preliminary method to analyze the risk in holistic risk approach to ship and channel design is needed. A
waterways. Other information relating to channel vessel and total risk approaches which enable appropriate trade off for
environment 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 Malaysia
Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia (email:
i. Loss of propulsion
O.sulaiman@umt.edu.my). ii. Loss of navigation system
24

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 risk
design process targeting risk preventive reduction. It based methods that fall under quantitative and qualitative
facilitates support for total risk approach to ship and analysis. Choice of best methods for reliability objective
waterways 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 tool
performance and system components as well as integration can always give the best of what is expect of system
and hybridisation of safety element and system lifecycle reliability and reduced risk.
phases. The risk process begins with definition of risk which
stands for the measure of the frequency and severity of C. SERM Process
consequence of an unwanted event (damage, energy, oil SERM intend to address risks over the entire life of the
spill). Risk is defined as product of probability of event complex system like IWT system where the risks are high or
occurrence 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 carried
to accidents. Necessary measures should be taken according out separately as part of integrated risk process. Other
to magnitude of event and required speed of response should waterways and vessel requirement factors that are considered
be given. Accidents are unwanted events that have either in SERM model are [9]:
immediate or delayed consequences. Immediate i. Construction
consequences variables include injuries, loss of life, property ii. Towing operations and abandonment of ship
damage, and persons in peril. Point form consequences iii. Installation, hook-up and commissioning
variables could result to further loss of life, environmental iv. Development and major modifications
damage and financial costs. Effective risk assessments and Integrated risk based method combined various technique
analysis required three elements highlighted in the relation as required in a process. Table 2 shows available risk based
below. 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 risk
risk analysis should be followed with creation of database process. Figure 3 shows SERM model and components of
and identification of novel technologies required for cost sustainability analysis
implementation of sustainable system.
A. Risk Framework IV. RELIABILITY AND VALIDATION ANALYSIS:
Risk framework provides system description, risk System reliability could be determined through the
identification, criticality, ranking, impact, possible mitigation following analysis [10]:
and high level objective to provide system with what will 1) Standard Deviation: Accident means, variance and
make it reliable. The framework development involves risk standard deviation from normal distribution
identification which requires developing understanding the 2) Stochastic Analysis: Accident average and projection
manner in which accidents, their initiating events and their rates per year calculation can be reliability projection for
consequences occur. Risk framework should be developed to the model. Poison distribution, standards distribution for
provide effective and sound risk assessment and analysis. and binomial distribution could be analyzed for required
The process requires accuracy, balance, and information that prediction and system capability. Poison distribution
meet high scientific standards of measurement. The involves the likelihood of observing k event in time
information 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 of
interest 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 failure
scientists. Transparency and community participation helps from subsystem level failure analysis
ask the right questions of the science and remain important 5) System improvement, for example Traffic Separation
input to the risk process, it help checks the plausibility of Scheme (TSS) Implementation effectiveness, could
assumptions and ensures that synthesis is both balanced and achieve reduction in head collision. This can be done
informative. Employment of quantitative analysis with through integration of normal distribution along width of
required insertion of scientific and natural requirements the waterways and subsequent implementation
provide 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 rivers
are effective[8]. of relative profile and vessel particular

25

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. 6
proposed need for technology, reliability, new regulations
Where: is Reduction in annual fatality rate, is
and sustainability required to be modeled for effective
mitigation options. RCBA involves quantification of cost Economic benefit resulting from implementing the risk
effectiveness that provides basis for decision making about control option, is Risk reduction in term of averted
identified 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 involved
used and operational limitation (speed, loads). Benefit could with them;
include reduced probability of fatality, injuries, serenity, iii. Consideration of societal indicators such as the Life
negative 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 accident
influenced by each option can be deduced. And also ii. Number of losses, number of life loss per accident
identification of the cost effectiveness expressed in terms of iii. Cost of fatality per accident, average total cost per
cost 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 limited
number 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 in
different 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) Risk
risk 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) x
accident 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. 9
based on statistics from shipyards or responsible government NPV of the benefit for estimated risk and implemented
institution 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 risk
reduction. 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 product
effectiveness of risk reduction measures are NCAF and
GCAF 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

2010-023X

NC , t>6000, N = number of injuries or fatalities, VI. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
C = 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 leave
in day, 6000 days is equivalent with a fatality, DNV = US$ 3 Figure 4a shows accident consequence accident energy
million = cost effective ICAF rate = 2GBP million = and accident occurrence frequency against all waterway
parameters, the meeting pint signify the optimum operating
developed 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 clearly
time. The event can be considered as poison events where defined. In order to identify new RCO, generated result from
time to first occurrence is exponentially distributed (Emi et al, the analysis of frequency and consequence, cost and benefit
1997). 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 the
energy 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 cost
of 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 collision
address the following: Available concept, consequence scenario. Therefore some of the measure that will be taken
energy 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 well
sought in all areas. It is represented by followed:
design requirement for increase double hull width, increase
Acceptable 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 Safety
needs of the present generation without compromising the
Improved navigational safety can be achieved in a number
ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. It
of different ways. From various identified risk control
requires balancing work between technical, developments,
options, five cost effective risk control options for navigation
economic, community participation, information sharing,
improvement that could potentially reduce the frequency of
environment and safety. Suitability principle calls on all
collision and grounding which are:
fields of human activities to review and adjust the way things
i. TSS
are done. At its 21st session in February 2001, the UNEP
ii. ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information
governing 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 with
Environment” 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 in
associated risks, review of RCO that keep ALARP curve in the list above might be promising alternatives for Langat
acceptable region, compare and rank RCO based on River. The cost effectiveness of implementing this measure
associated cost and benefit. It also involves specification of for Langat River is evaluated in this study. Hence, the risk
recommendation for decision makers towards beyond control option for improved navigational safety is defined as
compliance 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 spill
sustainable system design. RCO provide measures, outcome due to overfilling, malfunction of a valve or human failure
of objective comparison of alternative option, and among other causes. The levels of storage tanks on board
subsequent contribution recommendation for sustainable must be continuously monitored since overfilling or product
implementation need of the system intactness, the planet and discharge on deck could have consequences for human life
the right of future generation. and for property.

27

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 of
accident. 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 gross
steering 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 ICAF
under 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 minimum
propulsion or steering system so that a vessel can ride out the energy of 20MJ, 2,8 million RM will be required to avert
storm 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 error
engines and two shaft lines. The use of all electric propulsion problem. These costs are still acceptable as long as they are
could 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 that
the captain’s qualification and competency is being screened the RCO is economically beneficial in itself, For example the
and regulated. It is recommended to institutional screen on costs of implementing the RCO are less than the economical
certification and competency of all officers on the vessels and benefit of implementing it. From the Figure, number of
to undergo simulation for normalization of behavior. This accident and loss of life are considered low. According to
risk control option aims at increasing the bridge team’s current practice within IMO and selected criteria for this
ability to handle difficult maneuvering tasks and crisis study, a risk control option will be regarded as cost effective
situations 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 be
a reduced risk of collision, grounding and contact events. The demonstrated to have a high potential for risk reduction will
simulator training could be specially designed for particular consequently be recommended for implementation. ICAF
port environments, underwater topography, and particular represent estimation of benefit of avoiding damage or fatality
bridge layouts on specific vessels and would give the and it ply important role in cost benefit analysis of risk. This
participants exercises in handling challenging situations from can be estimated using the following means.
different positions of the bridge team. Important parts in such
exercises might be passage planning, situation awareness and G. Sustainability
operation during malfunction of critical technical equipment. Figure 6 show it cost much more to implement navigation
The risk control option suggested herein goes beyond the and machineries failure system. The maximum cost is
basic training requirements defined by IMO’s International indicated by the point where the total cost (Ct), the present
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and value of loss, and NPV coincide, about RM30 million, where
Watch 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 Langat
for new regulations based on mitigation and options selection. River in future. According to recent discussion with Langat
RCBA involve quantification of cost effectiveness that River, a decision is already made no pass the bridge over the
provides basis for decision making about RCO identified, river. Therefore for Langat River that need to be included in
this include the net or gross and discounting values. analysis, but benefit could be quantify into cost.
Consideration is also given to cost of equipment, redesign
and construction, documentation, training, inspection REFERENCES
maintenance, 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, 2005
include 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. MIT
negative 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

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

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 year
Fa :-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

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

150000000
Cost

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

Risk cost benefit analysis of colision aversion model 74 f493

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Risk cost benefit analysis of colision aversion model 74 f493

More from Oladokun Sulaiman Olanrewaju

Risk cost benefit analysis of colision aversion model 74 f493