Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robust analysis of cost-effectiveness in formal safety assessment

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper probes the robustness of the present method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness (CE) of risk control options, which are identified through the International Maritime Organisation Guidelines on Formal Safety Assessment (FSA). We highlight the deficiencies of the current CE method, undermining its lucidity and consistency in application. The proposed approach outlines a mathematical formulation that neatly integrates all aspects of CE measures along with its application based on the Pareto dominance concept. We benchmark our method against CE results found in the FSAs for cargo and passenger ships, demonstrating the ease of application and clarity of interpretation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Appendix gives brief descriptions of RCOs which are referred to throughout the paper.

  2. In this context, the societal risk is referred to the potential loss of life or the expected number of fatalities.

References

  1. MSC/83/INF.2 (2007) Formal safety assessment: consolidated text of the guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process (MSC/Circ.1023-MEPC/Circ.392). IMO, London

  2. MSC/83/21/1 (2007) Formal safety assessment: FSA—liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. IMO, London (submitted by Denmark)

  3. MSC/83/21/2 (2007) Formal safety assessment: FAS—container vessels. IMO, London (submitted by Denmark)

  4. MSC/83/INF.8 (2007) Formal safety assessment: FSA—container vessels. IMO, London

  5. MEPC/58/17/2 (2008) Formal safety assessment: FSA—crude oil tankers. IMO, London (submitted by Denmark)

  6. MSC/85/17/1 (2008) Formal safety assessment: FSA—cruise ships. IMO, London

  7. MSC/85/17/2 (2008) Formal safety assessment: FSA—RoPax ships. IMO, London (submitted by Denmark)

  8. MSC/72/16 (2000) Formal safety assessment: decision parameters including risk acceptance criteria. IMO, London (submitted by Norway)

  9. Skjong R, Ronold K (1998) Social indicators and risk acceptance. In: Offshore mechanics and arctic engineering conference (OMAE)

  10. Skjong R, Vanem E, Endresen Ø (2005) Risk evaluation criteria. (DNV)

  11. MEPC/62/WP.13 (2011) Report of the working group on environmental risk evaluation criteria within the context of formal safety assessment. In: Formal safety assessment. IMO, London

  12. MEPC/62/INF.24 (2011) Consolidated dataset on oil spills. IMO, London (submitted by Germany, Japan and the United States)

  13. MEPC/62/18 (2011) Combining environmental and safety criteria and selection of a severity matrix. IMO, London (submitted by Greece)

  14. Devanney J (2010) Formal safety assessment in Wonderland. In: Working paper (available at http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/fsa.pdf) (Center for Tankship Excellence (CTX))

  15. Kontovas CA, Psaraftis HN (2009) Formal safety assessment: a critical review. Mar Technol 46(1):45–59

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1983) Chapter 1, Section 2.4. Game theory. MIT Press

  17. Schaffer JD (1985) Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of an international conference on genetic algorithms and their applications

  18. Coello CAC (1999) A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization. Knowl Inf Syst 1(3):269–308

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kaliszewski I (2006) Soft computing for complex multiple criteria decision making. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, p 172

  20. Puisa R, Vassalos D, Guarin L (2011) Design for safety with minimum life-cycle cost. In: Almeida Santos Neves M, Belenky VL, Kat JOD, Spyrou K, Umeda N (eds) Contemporary ideas on ship stability and capsizing in waves. Springer, p 600

  21. Puisa R, Mohamed K (2011) Prudent platform for multidisciplinary ship design exploration, analysis and optimisation. In: International conference on computer applications in shipbuilding (ICCAS 2011) RINA, Trieste

  22. Papanikolaou A (2010) Holistic ship design optimization. Comput Aided Des 42(11):1028–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hydrodynamics Laboratory, The Ship Stability Research Centre of University of Strathclyde, Acre Road, Maryhill, Glasgow, G20 0TL, Scotland, UK

    Romanas Puisa & Dracos Vassalos

Authors
  1. Romanas Puisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dracos Vassalos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romanas Puisa.

Appendix: Descriptions of risk control options

Appendix: Descriptions of risk control options

See Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Table 6 Description of RCOs proposed for crude oil tankers [5]
Full size table
Table 7 Description of RCOs proposed for container vessels [3]
Full size table
Table 8 Description of RCOs proposed for cruise ships [6]
Full size table
Table 9 Description of RCOs proposed for RoPax ships [7]
Full size table

About this article

Cite this article

Puisa, R., Vassalos, D. Robust analysis of cost-effectiveness in formal safety assessment. J Mar Sci Technol 17, 370–381 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-012-0164-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-012-0164-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation