CLO/GSA MARKS

CLO2 /70

CLO3 /30
DCC30103 – HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TOTAL /100
CASECSTUDY
NAME: TIME ALLOCATION:
MATRIX NO: DATE:
PROGRAM: CLASS:

INSTRUCTION:

T This CASE STUDY requires you and your team to come up with a case study regarding Topic 8 & 9
(CLO2,PLO3). You will work in a team, with maximum 4 MEMBERS and each person contributing equally
to the research, and reporting of your case study. Below are the details:

CLO2,
C5,
PLO3

Traffic aaccidents have become a major problem facing the road users in the recent years, according to the
statistics from the Institut Kajian Keselamatan Jalan Raya Malaysia (MIROS) there were recorded 4,634 death
accidents by the year 2020. Accidents not only affect the mobility but also contribute to air pollution and slow
down economic growth. As an engineer, you played an important role in conducting a research, analysis
problems and proposed an engineering solutions to control the problem. Therefore, as a group;

TASK 1: Identify any place at Malaysia that have this risk. You must support the data with any
statistic you can get from any sources/department/statistic/online news (C2 ; DP1 Depth of Knowledge
Required; DP4:Familarity of issue).lampirkan Bersama gambar

TASK 2 : Collect the data of the road in term of engineering design of the road, classification by JKR to
describe the characteristics, functions and road system that related to the problem (C3; DP2 Extensive Practical
Knowledge)

TASK 3: Evaluate the issue or problems arising with the road accident (human, road condition and vehicle
problem) (C4; DP3: Depth of Analysis).

TASK 4: Individually, propose a design for the new road as a solution to overcome the problem; especially by
using traffic management technique (complete with procedure and picture and labelling). (C5;
DK5:Engineering Design)
 i. The suggestion MUST include highway maintenance technique.
ii. The suggestion can also include esthetical, operation and maintenance, local and authority,
alignment design, parking design, travel demand design, traffic sign and marking,
enforcement and laws and etc
iii. Make sure you support your ideas with facts and figures. You may also carry out a field
survey.

TASK 5: Report Findings : A report is a systematic, well organized document which defines and
analyses a subject or problem, and which may include: (refer format report for case study)

TASK 6: Present your report. Demonstrate confidence and organized formal presentation with
accurate use of technical vocabulary in group or individual. (refer presentation rubric : CLO3 ; A3)
 RUBRIC FOR ASSESSING CASE STUDY DCC30103 HIGHWAY & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
CLO2 Assesses design performance for highway and traffic engineering based on appropriate specification with consideration of public safety, society
and environment
PO3 Design solutions for well-defined technical problems and assist with the design of systems, components or processes to meet specified
needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations ( DK5)
Level DP/NA
DP1: Depth of Knowledge Required; DP2: Range of Conflicting Requirement; DP3:Depth of Analysis; DK5: Engineering Design
Demonstrate knowledge on understandings the problem in line with case study
5 (A-, A, A+) 4 (B-, B, B+) 3 (C, C+) 2(D, D+, C-) 1 (E,F)
Demonstrate well developed Demonstrate substantial Demonstrate adequate Demonstrate little Unable to demonstrate
and thorough understanding of developed understanding of understanding of problems understanding of problems understanding of problems
problems involved in the case problems involved in the case involved in the case study. involved in the case study. involved in the case study.
study. study.
DP1 Supporting Evidence
TASK 5 (A-, A, A+) 4 (B-, B, B+) 3 (C, C+) 2(D, D+, C-) 1 (E,F)
1 Provide more than Three (3) Provide Three (3) Provide Two (2) Provide at least One (1) No references/source used to
reference used to support references/source used to references/source used to references/source used to support information
C2 information support information support information. support information

DP4
Identify Issues / problem diagnosis
5 (A-, A, A+) 4 (B-, B, B+) 3 (C, C+) 2(D, D+, C-) 1 (E,F)
Compare more than three (3) Compare three (3) issues.  Compare two (2) issues Discuss only one (1) issues. No issue discussed.
TASK Issues/problems are clear, Issues/problems are quite clear Issues/problems are mostly unclear
2
issues.
Issues/problems are very clear, concise and well identified. or concise. Fairly identified. and not concise. Poorly identified
C3 DP2 concise and well identified
Analysis & Evaluation
5 (A-, A, A+) 4 (B-, B, B+) 3 (C, C+) 2(D, D+, C-) 1 (E,F)
Presents an insightful and Presents an adequate analysis of Presents a thorough analysis of Presents a superficial analysis Presents an incomplete analysis of
thorough analysis of all issues all issues identified most issues identified of some of the issues identified the issues identified
identified
TASK Supports diagnosis and opinions Supports diagnosis and opinions Supports diagnosis and opinions Supports diagnosis and Supports diagnosis and opinions
3
DP3
with strong arguments and with arguments and evidence; with reasons and evidence; opinions with limited reasons with few reasons and little
evidence; presents a balanced presents a balanced and critical presents a fairly balanced view; and evidence; presents a evidence; argument is one-sided
C4 and critical view; interpretation view; interpretation is both interpretation is both reasonable somewhat one-sided argument and not objective
is both reasonable and objective reasonable and objective and objective
Recommendation
5 (A-, A, A+) 4 (B-, B, B+) 3 (C, C+) 2(D, D+, C-) 1 (E,F)
Design decisions are clearly Design decisions are correlated Some design decisions are Some design decisions are Design decisions are not correlated
correlated with the requirements, with these requirements, with correlated with these correlated with these with these requirements. Multiple
TASK DK5 supported with field survey. some engineering study requirements, with some requirements, without (and possibly conflicting)
4 Multiple (and possibly evidence. Multiple (and engineering evidence. Some of engineering evidence. Some of requirements are not discussed and
conflicting) requirements are possibly conflicting) the requirements are discussed the multiple (and possibly engineering trade-offs which are
clearly discussed and requirements are discussed and and engineering trade-offs which conflicting) requirements are done to address these requirements
C5
engineering trade-offs done to
address these requirements are
indicated. Compliance with the
requirements is fully justified
with associated test results. A
discussion on the robustness of
the system against possible error
sources is provided
5 (A-, A, A+)
Excellent Final design achieved
after review of 4 reasonable
alternatives.
TOTAL POINTS
engineering trade-offs which
are done to address these
requirements are indicated, but
are not supported by technical
analyses. Compliance with the
requirements is justified with
associated test results but some
test results are missing. A
discussion on the robustness of
the system against possible
error sources is provided but not
sufficient.
4 (B-, B, B+)
Good final design achieved after
review of less than 4 reasonable
alternatives.
are done to address these
requirements are indicated, but
are not supported by
measurements. Compliance with
the requirements is not very well
justified with associated test
results. Many test results are
missing. A discussion on the
robustness of the system against
possible error sources is either not
provided or not sufficient
3 (C, C+)
Alternative approaches identified
to some degree with 3 reasonable
alternatives.
discussed and engineering are not indicated. Compliance with
trade-offs which are done to the requirements is not justified
address these requirements are with associated test results. Many
indicated, but are not supported test results are missing. A
by measurements. Compliance discussion on the robustness of the
with the requirements is not system against possible error
very well justified with sources is not provided
associated test results. Many
test results are missing. A
discussion on the robustness of
the system against possible
error sources is either not
provided or not sufficient
2(D, D+, C-) 1 (E,F)
Serious deficiencies in exploring Only one design presented or clearly
and identifying alternative infeasible alternative given.
designs with two reasonable
alternatives.
/ 30
7.0 Format of Report For Case Study

a. General format:
- Font: Times New Roman (size 12 pt Double spacing, Justify)
- Individual reports for Tasks 4 and 5 should be compiled together in the Group Report submission, with Names and
Student ID written for each of the team member’s individual report.
*There will be penalties (marks deduction) for plagiarism between individual team members report.

b. Cover (blue paper)

Names and Ids of each member in group, PTSB logo, Title

c. Specific format
The report must consist of the following sections:

1. Front Page –Table of Contents

2. List of Tables & List of Figures
3. Content of report shall be presented as follows:
➢ Chapter 1(Introduction/ Background of Project) - Any introduction to arising problem. Evaluation of identified
problems, and why the case study is significant (Max. of 2 pages)
➢ Chapter 2: Identification and justification of road (key point/image/photo/picture, existing system, function,
hierarchy, administration etc.) also include current situation. Elaborate all the key points (Max. of 2 page)
➢ Chapter 3: Elaboration of relevant issue (Max. of 2 pages)
➢ Chapter 4: Individual Proposal of a Traffic Management, road maintenance or other Traffic Engineering solution
(Max. of 2 pages/individual)
➢ Chapter 6: Conclusions and Limitations (Max. of 1 page)
➢ References
➢ Appendices (if relevant)
 Rubrics for Presentation – DCC30103 TRAFFIC & HIGHWAY ENGINEERING
CLO3 : Explain the findings of a case study in formal presentation • NA1 (Range of Resources)
NA4 (Consequences To Society & Environment)
PLO10: Communicate effectively on well-defined engineering activities (NA) with the engineering
•NA5 (Familiarity of issues - materials/techniques/processes in
community and with society at large by being able to comprehend the work of others, document their
modified ways)
own work, give and receive clear instructions
Performanc Well Defined
e Criteria Eng. Problem/ 1 (E, F) 2 (D, D+,C-) 3 (C, C+) 4 (B-, B, B+) 5 (A-, A, A+)
Activities
NA1
Gathering & explaining Information
A3
Involved only 1 Involved only 2
CLO3 Involved 3 resource Involved 4 resources Involved more 4 resources
resource resources
PO10
NA4
Relate issue with the consequence to society & Environment
A4
Small level of Medium level of
Good level of interactions
interaction between interactions between High level of interactions between technical and
No interaction between technical and
technical and technical and engineering issues
engineering issues
engineering issues engineering issues

NA5
Present idea : Familiarity of issues - materials/techniques/processes in modified ways)
A2

Not apply any Organise by Organise by applying

Organise by applying 2 principles-
principles- applying 1 1 principles-based Organise by applying more than 2 principles-based
based approach beyond previous
based principles-based approach beyond
experience
approach beyond previous experience
approach approach previous experience

TOTAL = /15