• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.

• Proceedings of the KOR-KST Conference
• /
• 1995.02a
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 1995

The Highway Capacity Manual specifies procedures for evaluating intersection performance in terms of delay per vehicle. What is lacking in the current methodology is a comparable quantitative procedure for ass~ssing the safety-based level of service provided to motorists. The objective of the research described herein was to develop a computational procedure for evaluating the safety-based level of service of signalized intersections based on the relative hazard of alternative intersection designs and signal timing plans. Conflict opportunity models were developed for those crossing, diverging, and stopping maneuvers which are associated with left-turn and rear-end accidents. Safety¬based level-of-service criteria were then developed based on the distribution of conflict opportunities computed from the developed models. A case study evaluation of the level of service analysis methodology revealed that the developed safety-based criteria were not as sensitive to changes in prevailing traffic, roadway, and signal timing conditions as the traditional delay-based measure. However, the methodology did permit a quantitative assessment of the trade-off between delay reduction and safety improvement. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) specifies procedures for evaluating intersection performance in terms of a wide variety of prevailing conditions such as traffic composition, intersection geometry, traffic volumes, and signal timing (1). At the present time, however, performance is only measured in terms of delay per vehicle. This is a parameter which is widely accepted as a meaningful and useful indicator of the efficiency with which an intersection is serving traffic needs. What is lacking in the current methodology is a comparable quantitative procedure for assessing the safety-based level of service provided to motorists. For example, it is well¬known that the change from permissive to protected left-turn phasing can reduce left-turn accident frequency. However, the HCM only permits a quantitative assessment of the impact of this alternative phasing arrangement on vehicle delay. It is left to the engineer or planner to subjectively judge the level of safety benefits, and to evaluate the trade-off between the efficiency and safety consequences of the alternative phasing plans. Numerous examples of other geometric design and signal timing improvements could also be given. At present, the principal methods available to the practitioner for evaluating the relative safety at signalized intersections are: a) the application of engineering judgement, b) accident analyses, and c) traffic conflicts analysis. Reliance on engineering judgement has obvious limitations, especially when placed in the context of the elaborate HCM procedures for calculating delay. Accident analyses generally require some type of before-after comparison, either for the case study intersection or for a large set of similar intersections. In e.ither situation, there are problems associated with compensating for regression-to-the-mean phenomena (2), as well as obtaining an adequate sample size. Research has also pointed to potential bias caused by the way in which exposure to accidents is measured (3, 4). Because of the problems associated with traditional accident analyses, some have promoted the use of tqe traffic conflicts technique (5). However, this procedure also has shortcomings in that it.requires extensive field data collection and trained observers to identify the different types of conflicts occurring in the field. The objective of the research described herein was to develop a computational procedure for evaluating the safety-based level of service of signalized intersections that would be compatible and consistent with that presently found in the HCM for evaluating efficiency-based level of service as measured by delay per vehicle (6). The intent was not to develop a new set of accident prediction models, but to design a methodology to quantitatively predict the relative hazard of alternative intersection designs and signal timing plans.

• The Journal of Engineering Geology
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.457-468
• /
• 2020

Problems arising during pile design works for plant construction, civil and architecture work are mostly come from uncertainty of geotechnical characteristics. In particular, obtaining the N-value measured through the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most important data. However, it is difficult to obtain N-value by drilling investigation throughout the all target area. There are many constraints such as licensing, time, cost, equipment access and residential complaints etc. it is impossible to obtain geotechnical characteristics through drilling investigation within a short bidding period in overseas. The geotechnical characteristics at non-drilling investigation points are usually determined by the engineer's empirical judgment, which can leads to errors in pile design and quantity calculation causing construction delay and cost increase. It would be possible to overcome this problem if N-value could be predicted at the non-drilling investigation points using limited minimum drilling investigation data. This study was conducted to predicted the N-value using an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) which one of the Artificial intelligence (AI) method. An Artificial Neural Network treats a limited amount of geotechnical characteristics as a biological logic process, providing more reliable results for input variables. The purpose of this study is to predict N-value at the non-drilling investigation points through patterns which is studied by multi-layer perceptron and error back-propagation algorithms using the minimum geotechnical data. It has been reviewed the reliability of the values that predicted by AI method compared to the measured values, and we were able to confirm the high reliability as a result. To solving geotechnical uncertainty, we will perform sensitivity analysis of input variables to increase learning effect in next steps and it may need some technical update of program. We hope that our study will be helpful to design works in the future.