• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.30 no.3A
• /
• pp.297-307
• /
• 2010

Recently, maintenance engineering and technology for civil and building structures have begun to draw big attention and actually the number of structures that need to be evaluate on structural safety due to deterioration and performance degradation of structures are rapidly increasing. When stiffness is decreased because of deterioration of structures and member cracks, dynamic characteristics of structures would be changed. And it is important that the damaged areas and extent of the damage are correctly evaluated by analyzing dynamic characteristics from the actual behavior of a structure. In general, typical measurement instruments used for structure monitoring are dynamic instruments. Existing dynamic instruments are not easy to obtain reliable data when the cable connecting measurement sensors and device is long, and have uneconomical for 1 to 1 connection process between each sensor and instrument. Therefore, a method without attaching sensors to measure vibration at a long range is required. The representative applicable non-contact methods to measure the vibration of structures are laser doppler effect, a method using GPS, and image processing technique. The method using laser doppler effect shows relatively high accuracy but uneconomical while the method using GPS requires expensive equipment, and has its signal's own error and limited speed of sampling rate. But the method using image signal is simple and economical, and is proper to get vibration of inaccessible structures and dynamic characteristics. Image signals of camera instead of sensors had been recently used by many researchers. But the existing method, which records a point of a target attached on a structure and then measures vibration using image processing technique, could have relatively the limited objects of measurement. Therefore, this study conducted shaking table test and field load test to verify the validity of the method that can measure multi-point displacement responses of structures using image processing technique.

• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.11-25
• /
• 1979

There was much mass movement at many different mountain side of Peong Chang area in Kwangwon province by the influence of heavy rainfall through August/4 5, 1979. This study have done with the fact observed through the field survey and the information of the former researchers. The results are as follows; 1. Heavy rainfall area with more than 200mm per day and more than 60mm per hour as maximum rainfall during past 6 years, are distributed in the western side of the connecting line through Hoeng Seong, Weonju, Yeongdong, Muju, Namweon and Suncheon, and of the southern sea side of KeongsangNam-do. The heavy rain fan reason in the above area seems to be influenced by the mouktam range and moving direction of depression. 2. Peak point of heavy rainfall distribution always happen during the night time and seems to cause directly mass movement and serious damage. 3. Soil mass movement in Peongchang break out from the course sandy loam soil of granite group and the clay soil of lime stone and shale. Earth have moved along the surface of both bedrock or also the hardpan in case of the lime stone area. 4. Infiltration seems to be rapid on the both bedrock soil, the former is by the soil texture and the latter is by the crumb structure, high humus content and dense root system in surface soil. 5. Topographic pattern of mass movement spot is mostly the concave slope at the valley head or at the upper part of middle slope which run-off can easily come together from the surrounding slope. Soil profile of mass movement spot has wet soil in the lime stone area and loose or deep soil in the granite area. 6. Dominant slope degree of the soil mass movement site has steep slope, mostly, more than 25 degree and slope position that start mass movement is mostly in the range of the middle slope line to ridge line. 7. Vegetation status of soil mass movement area are mostly fire field agriculture area, it's abandoned grass land, young plantation made on the fire field poor forest of the erosion control site and non forest land composed mainly grass and shrubs. Very rare earth sliding can be found in the big tree stands but mostly from the thin soil site on the un-weatherd bed rock. 8. Dangerous condition of soil mass movement and land sliding seems to be estimated by the several environmental factors, namely, vegetation cover, slope degree, slope shape and position, bed rock and soil profile characteristics etc. 9. House break down are mostly happen on the following site, namely, colluvial cone and fan, talus, foot area of concave slope and small terrace or colluvial soil between valley and at the small river side Dangerous house from mass movement could be interpreted by the aerial photo with reference of the surrounding site condition of house and village in the mountain area 10. As a counter plan for the prevention of mass movement damage the technics of it's risk diagnosis and the field survey should be done, and the mass movement control of prevention should be started with the goverment support as soon as possible. The precautionary measures of house and village protection from mass movement damage should be made and executed and considered the protecting forest making around the house and village. 11. Dangerous or safety of house and village from mass movement and flood damage will be indentified and informed to the village people of mountain area through the forest extension work. 12. Clear cutting activity on the steep granite site, fire field making on the steep slope, house or village construction on the dangerous site and fuel collection in the eroded forest or the steep forest land should be surely prohibited When making the management plan the mass movement, soil erosion and flood problem will be concidered and also included the prevention method of disaster.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.59-89
• /
• 2009

The objectives of the 1963 Tokyo Convention cover a variety of subjects, with the intention of providing safety in aircraft, protection of life and property on board, and promoting the security of civil aviation. These objectives will be treated as follows: first, the unification of rules on jurisdiction; second, the question of filling the gap in jurisdiction; third, the scheme of maintaining law and order on board aircraft; fourth, the protection of persons acting in accordance with the Convention; fifth, the protection of the interests of disembarked persons; sixth, the question of hijacking of aircraft; and finally some general remarks on the objectives of the Convention. The Tokyo Convention mainly deals with general crimes such as murder, violence, robbery on board aircraft rather than aviation terrorism. The Article 11 of the Convention deals with hijacking in a simple way. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention cover the hijacking and sabotage respectively. The Problem of national jurisdiction over the offence and the offender was as tangled at the Hague and Montreal Convention, as under the Tokyo Convention. Under the Tokyo Convention the prime base of jurisdiction is the law of the flag (Article 3), but concurrent jurisdiction is also allowed on grounds of: territorial principle, active nationality and passive personality principle, security of the state, breach of flight rules, and exercise of jurisdiction necessary for the performance of obligations under multilateral agreements (Article 4). No Criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law is excluded [Article 3(2)]. However, Article 4 of the Hague Convention(hereafter Hague Article 4) and Article 5 of the Montreal Convention(hereafter Montreal Article 5), dealing with jurisdiction have moved a step further, inasmuch as the opening part of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Hague Article 4 and the Montreal Article 5 impose an obligation on all contracting states to take measures to establish jurisdiction over the offence (i.e., to ensure that their law is such that their courts will have jurisdiction to try offender in all the circumstances covered by Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5). The state of registration and the state where the aircraft lands with the hijacker still on board will have the most interest, and would be in the best position to prosecute him; the paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the Montreal Article 5 deal with it, respectively. However, paragraph 1(b) of the Hague Article 4 and paragraph 1(c) of the Montreal Article 5 do not specify if the aircraft is still under the control of the hijacker or if the hijacker has been overpowered by the aircraft commander, or if the offence has at all occurred in the airspace of the state of landing. The language of the paragraph would probably cover all these cases. The weaknesses of Hague Article 4 and Montreal Article 5 are however, patent. The Jurisdictions of the state of registration, the state of landing, the state of the lessee and the state where the offender is present, are concurrent. No priorities have been fixed despite a proposal to this effect in the Legal Committee and the Diplomatic Conference, and despite the fact that it was pointed out that the difficulty in accepting the Tokyo Convention has been the question of multiple jurisdiction, for the reason that it would be too difficult to determine the priorities. Disputes over the exercise of jurisdiction can be endemic, more so when Article 8(4) of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention give every state mentioned in Hague Article 4(1) and Montreal Article 5(1) the right to seek extradition of the offender. A solution to the problem should not have been given up only because it was difficult. Hague Article 4(3) and Montreal Article 5(3) provide that they do not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Thus the provisions of the two Conventions create additional obligations on the state, and do not exclude those already existing under national laws. Although the two Conventions do not require a state to establish jurisdiction over, for example, hijacking or sabotage committed by its own nationals in a foreign aircraft anywhere in the world, they do not preclude any contracting state from doing so. However, it has be noted that any jurisdiction established merely under the national law would not make the offence an extraditable one under Article 8 of the Hague and Montreal Convention. As far as international aviation terrorism is concerned 1988 Montreal Protocol and 1991 Convention on Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detention are added. The former deals with airport terrorism and the latter plastic explosives. Compared to the other International Terrorism Conventions, the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions do not have clauses of the passive personality principle. If the International Aviation Terrorism Conventions need to be revised in the future, those clauses containing the passive personality principle have to be inserted for the suppression of the international aviation terrorism more effectively. Article 3 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Article 5 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Article 6 of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation would be models that the revised International Aviation Terrorism Conventions could follow in the future.