MONASH UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIV 3283 Assignment 1
Please note following points:
a) Individual submission required
b) Due on 15/8/2016 at 5 pm (10% for every day late submission. No assignment is accepted if it is
more than 3 days late
Question 1: Evaluation of Alternatives: This question will help you in determining how to conduct an
Economic Evaluation of your alternative alignments for the project.
In response to increasing volumes of traffic and a sharp rise in accident rates in a small rural town, the
state road authority has commissioned a study for a new bypass. Three alternatives have been
identified. Which option would you recommend based on:
a) The Net Present Worth Method?
b) The Benefit-Cost Ratio Method?
c) The Incremental Benefit-Cost Method?
[60%]
NPV costs was calculated by finding the net present value of the construction cost and annual
maintenance cost for each of the five years and then adding it altogether. To find the NPV benefits, it
can be determined by subtracting annual user costs of each of the proposals from the annual user cost of
the no build option.
Since the annual user cost was not given, it was calculated by adding the sum of accident cost,
operating cost and travel cost.
1) Accident cost was calculated by multiplying the cost per accident with the number of accidents per
year. For example, the accident cost for no build option was $135000*8 = $1080000.
2) Operating cost was found by using the number of kilometres travelled for cars and trucks each year
and multiplying it by the cost.
For example, operating cost for year 1 of the no build option is:
Operating cost = AADT*(1.035)^1*365 days * distance* (85% cars * $0.20 + 15% trucks * $0.65)
= 3000*(1.035)^1*365*2.5*(85% * 0.20 + 15% * 0.65)
= $757911.09
3) Travel cost was determined by multiplying travelling time for both cars and trucks with AADT and
multiplying 365 to find the year cost for each of the options.
For example, the travel cost for year 1 of the no build option is:
Travel cost = AADT*(1.035)^1*365 days*3/60 seconds* (85% cars * $14/hr + 15% trucks * $22/hr)
= 3000*(1.035)^1*365*1/20*(85%*14 + 15%*22)
= $861327
Therefore, the annual user for year 1 of the no build option is $1080000 + $757911.09 + $861327
= $2699238.094.

From the calculations done on excel spreadsheet, the recommended proposal based on the different
evaluation alternatives are listed below:
a) The Net Present Worth Method: Proposal 2 as it is the only project with a positive net present
worth of $100493.96.
b) The Benefit-Cost Ratio Method: Proposal 2 as the B/C ratio is greater than 1 and it also has the
highest B/C ratio of 1.02.
c) The Incremental Benefit-Cost Method: Proposal 2 as it has an incremental B/C ratio greater
than 1 when compared to other proposals and also the highest ratio of 1.1.
Question 2: Two drivers each have a reaction time of 2.5 seconds. One is obeying a 100 km/hr speed
limit and the other is travelling illegally at 135km/hr.
Which of the following is TRUE?
[5 %]
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

For the driver travelling at 100 km/h, distance covered is 83.33 m

Driving at 100 km/h increases the distance covered during perception/reaction by 20.83m.
Driving at 120km/h increases the distance covered during perception/reaction by 20.83m.
Driving at 120km/h increases the distance covered during perception/reaction by 24.31m.
None of the above

100km/hr D = (100*1000/3600)*2.5 = 69.44m

135km/hr D = (135*1000/3600)*2.5 = 93.75m
93.75-69.44 = 24.31m
Question 3: You have been called in to independently assess the following proposed design for a
horizontal curve. Radius = 350 metres, e = 0.06, speed limit = 120 km/h.
a. Is this a potentially hazardous location? If so, why?
[7%]
Coefficient of side friction = 0.11
Rmin = V^2/127(emax + fmax) = 120^2/127*(0.06 + 0.11) = 666.98m round up to 700m
This is a potentially hazardous location as the proposed radius is smaller than the design minimum
radius for the speed limit indicated. If the radius is 350m and cars are travelling at 120km/h then they
would go off the road to a tangent.
b. Propose TWO measures (with calculations) that could be taken to correct the situation?
[8%]
One of the measure that could be taken to correct the situation is to reduce posted speed limit down to
80km/h if the proposed design wants to keep a radius of 350m.
350 = V^2/(127*(0.06 +0.11))
V = 86.93km/h
Fmax = 0.16 + 6.93*((0.16-0.13)/(80-90)) = 0.1392

350 = V^2/127*(0.06 + 0.1392)

V = 94.1 km/h for design speed
The other measure that could be taken is to increase the curve to a radius of 700m in order to keep the
proposed design speed of 120km/h.
Rmin = V^2/127(emax + fmax) = 120^2/127*(0.06 + 0.11) = 666.98m round up to 700m
Question 4:
(a) Determine the braking distance required for a motorist travelling at 80 km/h on a 3.5% downgrade
to come to a complete stop. Assume the longitudinal friction factor has been provided as 0.43.
[5%]
braking distance = V^2/254*(F+-0.01G) = 80^2/254*(0.43-0.035) = 63.8m
(b) A motorist travelling at 100 km/h down a grade of 3.5% observes an incident ahead of him. If he
was able to stop his vehicle 5 metres from the incident, how far away was he when he first observed the
incident? Assume a perception-reaction time of 2.5 seconds and longitudinal friction factor as 0.39.
[5%]
SSD = R*V/3.6 + V^2/254*(F+-0.01G) = 2.5*100/3.6 + 100^2/254*(0.39-0.035) = 180.3m
The incident was 185.3m ahead of him
Question 5: An existing horizontal curve in level terrain has a radius of 340 metres that restricts the
posted speed limit to 75% of the design speed. If the curve is to be widened so that the posted speed
limit equals the design speed, determine the minimum radius (in metres) of the new curve. [Assume
fmax = 0.13 and emax = 0.06]
[10%]
Rmin = V^2/127(emax + fmax)
340 = V^2/127(0.06+0.13)
V = 90.6 km/h posted speed limit rounding down to 90km/h.
Design speed limit = 90/0.75 = 120km/h
Using fmax = 0.11
Rmin = 120.8^2/127*(0.06+0.11) = 666.98m round up to 700m