What is a CBR? How many CBR tests are required for a pavement design?

For a pavement design, we have to perform several CBR tests as per change in properties of the soil this depends on place to place like from local roads to freeways. 

There are many councils on Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, for all of them they have different guideline about how many tests needs to be performed that’s usually based on the geological condition and properties of the soil present on those council areas.

On the basis of importance of roads, how many tests are being done by engineers and their information’s.

How the number of tests varies with the geological condition of the road in Victoria and make a chart to compare these data.

College of Engineering and Science

NEF4101 Research Project 1

Report part A: Project Proposal [70%]

[7,000 words equivalent. Please consult your project supervisor about the specific structure and length of the project proposal that best suit your project.]

Project title:

Student Name:

Student ID:

Supervisor:

Date submitted:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1.

Background / Introduction / Significance [10 marks]

HD (High-Distinction)

D (Distinction)

C (Credit)

P (Pass)

F (Fail)

Clear introduction and definition of the project and its practical significance.
Detailed discussion provided on background information and theory relevant to research project.
(8 – 10 points)

Clear introduction and definition of the project and its practical significance.
Discussion provided on background information and theory relevant to research project.
(7 points)

Clear introduction and definition of the project and its practical significance.
Discussion provided on background information relevant to research project.

(6 points)

Clear introduction and definition of the project.
Discussion provided on background information relevant to research project.
(5 points)

Unclear introduction and definition of the project.
Limited discussion provided on background information relevant to research project.
(0 – 4 points)

2. Literature Review [30 marks]

HD (High-Distinction)

D (Distinction)

C (Credit)

P (Pass)

F (Fail)

Critical review of relevant literature with identification of projects contribution to knowledge and additional knowledge gaps.
Extremely extensive survey of literature and demonstration of ability to consolidate relevant knowledge.
Demonstration of advanced understanding in field of study through identification of limitations with existing knowledge.
(24 – 30 points)

Critical review of relevant literature with identification of projects contribution to knowledge.
Deep survey of literature and demonstration of ability to consolidate relevant knowledge.
Demonstration of advanced understanding in field of study through identification of limitations with existing knowledge.
(21 – 23 points)

Review of relevant literature to a commendable level with discussion detailing projects contribution to knowledge.
Detailed survey of literature demonstrating the ability to consolidate relevant knowledge.
(18 – 20 points)

Review of relevant literature to a satisfactory level with some discussion detailing projects contribution to knowledge.
Survey of literature contains discussion of some irrelevant information.
(15 – 17 points)

No critical thinking demonstrated in literature review.
Limited survey of literature, or review of irrelevant literature.
(0 – 14 points)

3. Aim(s) and Scope of the Project [5 marks]

HD (High-Distinction)

D (Distinction)

C (Credit)

P (Pass)

F (Fail)

Research aims, project scope and limitations of study stated in high level of detail and justified.
(4 – 5 points)

Research aims, project scope and limitations of study clearly stated in detail.
(3.5 points)

Research aims, project scope and limitations of study stated in some detail.
(3 points)

Research aims and project stated.
(2.5 points)

Research aims and project scope not clearly stated, or irrelevant to project.
(0 – 2 points)

4. Proposed Methodology [20 marks]

HD (High-Distinction)

D (Distinction)

C (Credit)

P (Pass)

F (Fail)

Proposed methodology is theoretically valid and justified using reviewed literature.
Methodology is practically feasible and achievable given project constraints.
Methodology is highly detailed providing clear direction for the undertaking of research project demonstrating student autonomy.
Solutions to problems associated with project limitations and available resources are provided through the proposed methodology.
(16 – 20 points)

Proposed methodology is theoretically valid.
Methodology is practically feasible and achievable given project constraints.
Methodology is detailed and provides direction for the undertaking of research project demonstrating student autonomy.
Solutions to problems associated with project limitations and available resources are provided through the proposed methodology.
(14 – 15 points)

Proposed methodology is theoretically valid.
Methodology is practically feasible and achievable given project constraints.
Methodology provides direction for the undertaking of research project.
Few solutions to problems associated with project limitations and available resources provided through the proposed methodology.
(12 – 13 points)

Proposed methodology is theoretically valid.
Methodology is practically feasible and achievable given project constraints.
Some ambiguity present in proposed methodology, with few or unclear tasks.
Some solutions to problems associated with project limitations and available resources are discussed in small level of detail.
(10 – 11 points)

Proposed methodology is not theoretically valid.
Methodology is not practically feasible and achievable given project constraints.
Undefined or unclear project tasks, with uncertain project direction.
No solutions to problems associated with project limitations and available resources discussed.
(0 – 9 points)

5. Resources Requirements & Schedule of activities [5 marks]

HD (High-Distinction)

D (Distinction)

C (Credit)

P (Pass)

F (Fail)

Critical evaluation of the resources needed to execute the proposed project, and derivation of original solutions to overcome limitations associated with resources.
Clear transmission of ideas and demonstration of technical ability in development of sophisticated Gantt Chart and Timeline with logical sequencing of activities, extensive activity list and feasible activity durations.

(4 – 5 points)

Critical evaluation of the resources needed to execute the proposed project is provided, and solutions to overcome limitations associated with resources discussed in some detail.

Clear transmission of ideas and demonstration of technical ability in development of Gantt Chart and Timeline with logical sequencing of activities, detailed activity list and feasible activity durations.
(3.5 points)

Evaluation of the resources needed to execute the proposed project is provided.
Limited discussion of resource limitations and consequent project constraints.

Demonstration of technical ability for the development of a feasible Gantt Chart with logical sequencing of the activities proposed in the research proposal.
Acceptable detail in activity list.
Activity dependency and practice feasible duration for each activity defined.
(3 points)

Adequate identification of the resources needed to implement the proposed project.
Discussion of resource limitations and consequent project constraints contains some errors and lacks detail.
Demonstration of technical ability for the Gantt Chart development with logical sequencing of the activities proposed in the research proposal.
Some activity dependencies and durations are questionable, though overall practicality and feasibility is maintained.
(2.5 points)

Unsatisfactory identification of the resources needed to implement the proposed project; feasibility of the plan to secure the resources not identified or discussed.
No discussion of the resource limitations and consequent project constraints.
No technical ability demonstrated for the Gantt Chart development with illogical sequencing of the activities proposed, lack of sufficient detail in activity list, no dependencies or duration’s specified and/or questionable feasibility.
(0 – 2 points)