SCHOOL OF ARCITECTURE,

COMPUTING & ENGINEERING

Submission instructions
x All submissions to Module MOODLE Turnitin

Module code EG7032

Module title Highway & Railway Engineering

Module leader Dr Alex Apeagyei, CEng FIHE FHEA

Assignment tutor Dr Alex Apeagyei & Dr Rasha Mohammad

Assignment title Highway & Railway Engineering Individual

Project

Assignment number 1

Weighting 100% (Word limit 6000)

Handout date 18 February 2025

Submission date 29 April 2025 16:00 Online

Learning outcomes assessed

by this assignment Learning outcome 1 to 8
(see course handbook)

Word Count: 6000 words +/-10% (excluding References, charts, tables and Appendices)

1
Form of assessment:

Individual work

Number of assignment copies required:

Assignment to be presented in the following format:

Stapled once in the top left-hand corner OR

Plastic A4 folder (with see-through cover/slide binder)

Note: To students submitting work on A3/A2 paper, work has to be contained in

suitable protective case to ensure any damage to work is avoided.

Soft copy: All documents to be submitted online.

The assessment for this module consists of one piece of coursework weighted at 100% of the
overall unit and is to be submitted online on or before 4pm 29/04/ 2025.

2
Project Brief
You are an engineer working for an engineering consultancy who has been
commissioned by a transport authority to provide technical assistance related to
the following highway and railway problems:

1. Pavement evaluation (30%)

A survey was carried out using a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) on an existing 2-
lane highway pavement. Deflections were recorded at 500 ft intervals in the outer wheel
path of each lanes using six deflection sensors. The results are shown in Table Q1.1.
Assume Poisson’s ratio of the subgrade is 0.35, and the applied FWD load was 9,000 lb
resulting in a applied stress of 80 psi. Furthermore, assume the six deflection sensors
are located at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 and 72 in. from the centre of the loading plate.
1a) Using the method of cumulative-sums technique, identify potential uniform sections
for the subgrade alone. Clearly show all your workings and present your results (Station
vs. uniform sections) in either a tabular fashion or on a graphical plot. (10%)
1b) Estimate the subgrade modulus using Boussinesq’s equation. Propose treatment
option(s) for the subgrade based on the deflection criteria discussed in class. (10%)
1c) Assuming the pavement at Station 2 consists of four layers namely the asphalt
surfacing of thickness 2 in., granular base of thickness 8 in., subbase thickness of 16 in.,
and a clayey subgrade, estimate the modulus values for each pavement layer through
backcalculation procedures. State any other reasonable assumptions made. (10%)

Table Q1.1 FWD sensor readings for pavement section. Note deflections is in mils
Station D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7
1 27.34 4.48 2.76 1.73 1.28 1.06 0.87
2 30.67 7.82 5.16 2.81 1.77 1.27 0.97
3 26.75 5.86 3.82 2.15 1.48 1.2 0.99
4 40.91 12.47 7.25 3.14 1.79 1.36 1.11
5 25.3 5.4 3.33 2.22 1.7 1.44 1.21
6 34.93 8.45 4.18 2.26 1.64 1.39 1.14
7 33.35 8.7 5.45 3.17 2.21 1.79 1.52
8 26.8 5.72 3.17 1.56 1 0.78 0.61
9 32.7 6.85 3.55 1.9 1.33 1.14 0.96
10 39.93 11.71 5.99 2.69 1.68 1.26 0.96
11 50.95 15.28 7.52 3.51 2.41 1.94 1.6
12 27.33 5.68 3.65 2.36 1.81 1.48 1.24
13 29.41 6.8 3.93 2.68 2.13 1.78 1.56
14 33.38 8.76 5.52 3.19 2.21 1.73 1.44
15 30.5 5.43 3.52 2.51 1.98 1.61 1.4
16 31.48 4.24 2.41 1.71 1.37 1.16 0.99
17 29.27 5.81 4.01 2.51 1.76 1.35 1.13
18 38.97 12.14 8.94 5.69 4.11 3.16 2.6
19 35.45 6.72 2.98 1.72 1.37 1.15 0.98
20 28.66 6.91 4.4 2.59 1.86 1.57 1.34

2. Highway Pavement Analysis and Design (20%)

Figure Q2.1 shows a cross-section of an existing pavement located in a city in the
Northern hemisphere. Use the information provided to answer the following questions.

3
1a) For the pavement structure shown in Figure Q2.1, determine the effective thickness
based on the information given. Use the Asphalt Institute approach in the determination
of the effective thickness.
1b) Assuming pavement has a subgrade stiffness of 10,000 psi (69 MPa), Determine
the thickness of overlay required to carry anticipated of 3.0 msa using the effective
thickness approach.
1c) For the same pavement as in the above, a series of 10 deflection measurements by
Benkelman beam were made on the pavement during a critical period when the
pavement temperature was 13°C. The measured deflections in inches are as shown in
Figure Q2.2. Determine the representative rebound deflection, the design rebound
deflection, and the required overlay thickness. Assume the stiffness of the asphalt
overlay is 500,000 psi.

Figure Q2.1. Details of existing pavement.

Figure Q2.2. Benkelman beam deflections.

4
3. Track structure analysis & design (25%)
a. Describe, with illustrations, four types of trackbed structures in common use
indicating some of their advantages and disadvantages (10%)
b. For the track structure shown in Figure Q3.1, it desired to replace the concrete ties
with wooden ties. Determine the reduction in service life as a result of the change from
wooden ties to concrete ties. Clearly state all assumptions made. You can use any
layer elastic analysis software of your choice but it is recommended to us Kentrack
software as discussed in class. (15%)

Figure Q3.1. Structure for a ballasted trackbed.

4. Environmental impacts (25%)

a. Briefly discuss the mechanism of ballast system failure. Use well-labelled sketches to
illustrate your answer (10%).
b. Discuss the implications of ballast failure (5%).
c. Discuss the main differences between the aggregates for railway ballast and
aggregates for highway granular base construction. (5%)
d. Discuss three factors that are critical to aggregates used for construction track ballast
high speed rail applications. (5%)

5
Submission Requirements

1. Work is to be word-processed and this should be in a clear legible typeface.

2. All the work must be the student’s own. All written work to be put through
‘Turnitin’ and final report included with submission (maximum similarity index
30%).
3. Submissions must be properly structured; this may involve pre-planning your
work. The report must have an introduction, a contents page, rationale and
conclusion as well as the main subject matter.
4. All figures and tables must be appropriately titled within the body of the text.
5. All pages should be clearly numbered.
6. A bibliography and/or any references used must be provided. Referencing to be
Harvard Notation (if in doubt, check ‘Cite them Right’).
7. Sketches may be in pencil with inked notes or produced by computer.
8. Calculations must be logically laid out so that they can be easily checked.
9. All work submitted must have a front sheet that clearly shows the student ID,
module code and title, module instructor (s), academic term and academic year.
10. The work must be submitted on MOODLE “Turnitin” before the deadline.
11. Work which is submitted after the deadline but within 24 hours of the due date
and time will have 5% deduction in the marks, submission which is beyond 24
hours will receive zero marks, unless extenuating circumstances are approved.
12. Note: This Module is not eligible for automatic 7-day extension.

6
Marking Scheme

Q1 30
Q2 20
Q3 25
Q4 25
Total 100

Marking Rubric
Excellent: All aspects of the brief are completed at 100%
a high level, with excellent technical accuracy, in-
depth analysis, and well-justified recommendations.
Strong presentation and clear understanding of the
real-world context. No mistakes.
Very good: Most aspects of the brief are well- 80%
executed, with solid technical work and good
justifications. Minor improvements could be made
in analysis depth or presentation quality. One
mistake or minor omissions.
Good: Basic understanding of key concepts with a 60%
few errors or areas lacking depth. The work meets
minimum requirements but lacks the thoroughness
or real-world relevance expected at a higher level.
Two or less mistakes or omissions
Average: Incomplete or incorrect elements in the 50%
technical work, with insufficient justification or
connection to real-world scenarios. Presentation
and recommendations are underdeveloped. Three
or less mistakes; many omissions
Poor: Major technical errors, lack of clarity, and 10%
insufficient engagement with the brief’s
requirements. The work shows minimal
understanding of the real-world applications.
Three or more mistakes; major omissions
Fail: The submission does not meet the minimum 0%
requirements. Significant technical errors, little to
no understanding of the brief, and lack of
meaningful analysis or presentation. Many
mistakes or no viable answer