Chapter 4 — Design, Analysis and Results

4.1.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.1.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.1.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task

• •

  Project condition: Desktop study vs. field reconnaissance vs. instrumented monitoring — when each tier is justified

• •

  Project condition: Investigation scope-of-work structure: objectives, tasks, schedule, budget, deliverables

• •

  Project condition: Distinguishing existing (secondary) data from newly collected (primary) data and their reliability tiers

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.1.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to…; desktop study vs — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASCE 7-22 (2022) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 11 & 26.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against investigation scope-of-work structure.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble investigation scope-of-work document with data-needs traceability matrix. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.1.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.1.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.1.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Beginning field work before defining which design decision the data will support.

• •

  Avoided: Treating a 40-year-old as-built drawing as equivalent in reliability to a current field survey.

• •

  Avoided: Sequencing investigation tasks by convenience instead of by decision-critical path.

• •

  Avoided: Treating data-needs traceability matrix linking each Chapter 4 design decision to a required investigation task as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.1.1. Investigation Overview — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.1.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.2.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.2.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.2.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$z = 1.96 (95$$
• •
  $$\sigma = 12 kPa (regional variability)$$
• •
  $$E = 5 kPa (allowable error)$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.2.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — sample size determination; spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 6.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for sample size determination.

• •

  Evaluate n = (z·σ/E)² term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.2.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.2.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.2.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Selecting a boring count from habit ('one per pier') instead of from the required statistical confidence.

• •

  Avoided: Ignoring known site heterogeneity (fill zones, old channels) when estimating σ.

• •

  Avoided: Treating sample size determination as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. without showing how spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.2.1. Site Investigation Program — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.2.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.3.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.3.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.3.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Records search hierarchy: agency archives, utility owner records, prior geotechnical reports, aerial imagery

• •

  Project condition: Data currency assessment — flagging records older than the site's last known disturbance

• •

  Project condition: Metadata capture: source, date, coordinate datum, vertical datum, accuracy statement

• •

  Project condition: Gap analysis between inventoried data and the data-needs matrix from the investigation overview

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.3.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — records search hierarchy; data currency assessment — flagging records older than the site's… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM E1527 (2021) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 8.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for records search hierarchy.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against metadata capture.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble data inventory spreadsheet with metadata and gap analysis. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.3.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.3.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.3.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Inventorying a record without confirming which horizontal or vertical datum it uses.

• •

  Avoided: Treating an undated aerial photo as current without independent verification.

• •

  Avoided: Treating records search hierarchy as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing data inventory spreadsheet with metadata and gap analysis. without showing how data currency assessment — flagging records older than the site's last known… was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.3.1. Data Inventory — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.3.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.4.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.4.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.4.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records

• •

  Project condition: Chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis

• •

  Project condition: QA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality

• •

  Project condition: Field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.4.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration…; chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM D6235 (2019) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against qA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble field data collection plan with sops and qa/qc criteria. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.4.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.4.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.4.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Sending a crew to the field without a calibrated instrument log.

• •

  Avoided: Omitting duplicate samples, leaving no way to estimate measurement variance later.

• •

  Avoided: Treating standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing field data collection plan with sops and qa/qc criteria. without showing how chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.4.1. Data Collection Plan — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.4.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.5.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.5.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.5.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Field log conventions: date/time, personnel, weather, equipment, station/coordinate reference

• •

  Project condition: Photographic documentation standards — orientation, scale reference, caption metadata

• •

  Project condition: Legibility and permanence requirements for records that may be used in litigation or forensic review

• •

  Project condition: Digital vs. paper field records and their respective custody/backup requirements

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.5.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — field log conventions; photographic documentation standards — orientation, scale reference, caption metadata — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM D5434 (2017) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 7.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for field log conventions.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against legibility and permanence requirements for records that may be used in litigation or forensic review.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble formatted field record package (logs + photo log). and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.5.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.5.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.5.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Recording an observation without a station reference, making it impossible to relocate later.

• •

  Avoided: Losing the only copy of field notes by failing to back up at end of shift.

• •

  Avoided: Treating field log conventions as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing formatted field record package (logs + photo log). without showing how photographic documentation standards — orientation, scale reference, caption metadata was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.5.1. Field Records — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.5.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.6.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.6.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.6.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$Perimeter = 1,240 ft$$
• •

  ΣΔN error = 0.28 ft

• •

  ΣΔE error = 0.19 ft

• •
  $$Required precision = 1:10,000$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.6.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — closed-loop traverse computation; horizontal and vertical datum selection (NAD83, NAVD88) and geoid model… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm AASHTO Green Book (7th Ed.) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 2.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for closed-loop traverse computation.

• •

  Evaluate Linear misclosure = √(ΣΔE)² + (ΣΔN)² and Precision = 1 / (Perimeter / Linear misclosure) term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against gNSS RTK vs.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble traverse closure computation and gis base layer with crs documentation. and submit it to the DOT design reviewer for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.6.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.6.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.6.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Mixing NAD83 and WGS84 coordinates in the same GIS layer without a documented transformation.

• •

  Avoided: Force-balancing a traverse that fails the precision standard instead of re-observing.

• •

  Avoided: Treating closed-loop traverse computation as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing traverse closure computation and gis base layer with crs documentation. without showing how horizontal and vertical datum selection (NAD83, NAVD88) and geoid model application was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.6.1. Survey and GIS — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.6.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.7.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.7.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.7.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Base map layering conventions (existing vs. proposed, discipline-coded layers)

• •

  Project condition: Contour interpolation methods (TIN vs. grid) and appropriate contour interval selection

• •

  Project condition: Utility quality levels per subsurface utility engineering (SUE) classification (A–D)

• •

  Project condition: Reconciling conflicting elevation data sources within a stated tolerance

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.7.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — base map layering conventions (existing vs; contour interpolation methods (TIN vs — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASCE 38-22 (2022) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 5.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for base map layering conventions (existing vs.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against utility quality levels per subsurface utility engineering (SUE) classification (A–D).

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble controlled base map (cad/gis) with sue quality-level classification. and submit it to the DOT design reviewer for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.7.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.7.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.7.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Showing SUE Quality Level D (records only) utilities with the same line weight as field-verified Quality Level A.

• •

  Avoided: Interpolating contours across a real discontinuity (retaining wall, channel) as if the surface were smooth.

• •

  Avoided: Treating base map layering conventions (existing vs as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing controlled base map (cad/gis) with sue quality-level classification. without showing how contour interpolation methods (TIN vs was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.7.1. Base Mapping — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.7.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.8.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.8.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.8.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  3 distinct strata identified

• •

  Program requires 1 primary + 1 duplicate test per stratum

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.8.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs; selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM D2487 (2017) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. and submit it to the geotechnical reviewer for the owner for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.8.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.8.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.8.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Running only index tests when the design decision (settlement) requires a performance test (consolidation).

• •

  Avoided: Specifying one test for an entire 20 m boring that clearly contains multiple distinct strata.

• •

  Avoided: Treating index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. without showing how selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.8.1. Laboratory Testing Program — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.8.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.9.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.9.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.9.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Visual condition assessment rating scales for existing infrastructure elements

• •

  Project condition: Distinguishing conditions requiring immediate safety action from those to be addressed in design

• •

  Project condition: Coordinating existing-conditions findings with the data inventory and gap analysis

• •

  Project condition: Documenting non-conforming or legacy conditions relative to current code (grandfathering)

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.9.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — visual condition assessment rating scales for existing infrastructure elements; distinguishing conditions requiring immediate safety action from those to be… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASCE 11-99 (1999 (R2016)) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 2.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for visual condition assessment rating scales for existing infrastructure elements.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against coordinating existing-conditions findings with the data inventory and gap analysis.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble existing conditions assessment report with condition ratings and hazard flags. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.9.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.9.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.9.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Recording a condition rating without a photo reference that lets a reviewer verify it.

• •

  Avoided: Failing to immediately escalate an observed life-safety hazard rather than saving it for the final report.

• •

  Avoided: Treating visual condition assessment rating scales for existing infrastructure elements as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing existing conditions assessment report with condition ratings and hazard flags. without showing how distinguishing conditions requiring immediate safety action from those to be addressed in… was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.9.1. Existing Conditions Assessment — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.9.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.10.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.10.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.10.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$As = 1,200 mm^{2}$$
• •
  $$fy = 420 MPa$$
• •
  $$d = 450 mm (field measured)$$
• •
  $$a = 55 mm$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.10.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — visual inspection techniques for concrete (cracking, spalling, corrosion staining) and…; nondestructive evaluation methods — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ACI 318-19 (2019) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 22.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for visual inspection techniques for concrete (cracking, spalling, corrosion staining) and steel (section loss, corrosion, distortion).

• •

  Evaluate Mn = As·fy·(d − a/2) term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against estimating as-built member capacity from field-measured dimensions and material condition.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble structural inspection report with as-built capacity recalculation. and submit it to the plan reviewer at the building department for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.10.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.10.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.10.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Recomputing capacity using as-designed dimensions instead of field-measured as-built dimensions.

• •

  Avoided: Treating a hairline crack as cosmetic without measuring width and correlating it to a known distress mechanism.

• •

  Avoided: Treating visual inspection techniques for concrete (cracking, spalling, corrosion staining) and steel (section loss, corrosion,… as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing structural inspection report with as-built capacity recalculation. without showing how nondestructive evaluation methods was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.10.1. Structural Inspection — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.10.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.11.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.11.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.11.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$N = 18$$
• •
  $$Em = 0.72$$
• •
  $$CB = 1.0$$
• •
  $$CS = 1.0$$
• •
  $$CR = 0.85$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.11.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — sPT procedure and sources of energy loss requiring correction to…; correction factors — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM D1586 (2018) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for sPT procedure and sources of energy loss requiring correction to a standard 60% energy ratio.

• •

  Evaluate N60 = N·Em·CB·CS·CR / 0.60 and (N1)60 = CN·N60 term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against overburden correction (CN) for comparing N-values across depth.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble boring logs with n60/(n1)60 corrections and stratigraphic classification. and submit it to the geotechnical reviewer for the owner for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.11.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.11.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.11.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Using raw N-values directly in a bearing capacity correlation without energy correction.

• •

  Avoided: Applying a single CR value to the entire boring instead of varying it with actual rod length at each depth.

• •

  Avoided: Misclassifying a silty sand as clay from visual inspection alone without Atterberg limits.

• •

  Avoided: Treating sPT procedure and sources of energy loss requiring correction to a standard 60% energy… as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.11.1. Geotechnical Investigation — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.11.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.12.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.12.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.12.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$V_hour = 820 veh$$
• •
  $$V_peak15 = 240 veh$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.12.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — peak hour factor (PHF) computation from 15-minute count intervals; design hour volume (DHV) derivation from AADT and the K… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm MUTCD (11th Ed.) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 4C.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for peak hour factor (PHF) computation from 15-minute count intervals.

• •

  Evaluate PHF = V_hour / (4 × V_peak15) and DHV = AADT × K × D term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against spot speed studies and the 85th-percentile speed for design/posted speed decisions.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble traffic data collection summary with phf and dhv computations. and submit it to the DOT design reviewer for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.12.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.12.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.12.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Using the average hourly volume in a capacity analysis instead of dividing by PHF to get the peak flow rate.

• •

  Avoided: Applying a statewide K-factor to an urban commuter corridor where the actual peaking is very different.

• •

  Avoided: Treating peak hour factor (PHF) computation from 15-minute count intervals as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing traffic data collection summary with phf and dhv computations. without showing how design hour volume (DHV) derivation from AADT and the K and D… was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.12.1. Transportation Data — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.12.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.13.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.13.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.13.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$A = 12 ft^{2}$$
• •
  $$P = 9.5 ft$$
• •
  $$n = 0.035$$
• •
  $$S = 0.004$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.13.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length,…; iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm HEC-22 (4th Ed.) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 3.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover).

• •

  Evaluate Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2) term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against channel/pipe geometry survey requirements.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble h&h data package with manning's equation hand-check calculation. and submit it to the floodplain administrator for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.13.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.13.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.13.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Estimating Manning's n from a table without field-verifying channel vegetation or lining condition.

• •

  Avoided: Using a single design storm from a national atlas without confirming the correct recurrence interval and duration for the governing design case.

• •

  Avoided: Treating watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover) as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing h&h data package with manning's equation hand-check calculation. without showing how iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.13.1. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.13.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.14.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.14.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.14.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment scope and recognized environmental conditions (RECs)

• •

  Project condition: Baseline water quality parameter selection tied to receiving-water designated use

• •

  Project condition: Wetland delineation methodology and jurisdictional determination basics

• •

  Project condition: Background/ambient sampling design to distinguish site impact from regional background conditions

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.14.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — phase I Environmental Site Assessment scope and recognized environmental conditions…; baseline water quality parameter selection tied to receiving-water designated use — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ASTM E1527-21 (2021) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for phase I Environmental Site Assessment scope and recognized environmental conditions (RECs).

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against wetland delineation methodology and jurisdictional determination basics.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble environmental baseline report with sampling results and wetland delineation. and submit it to the state permit engineer for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.14.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.14.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.14.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Skipping background sampling and attributing all detected concentrations to the site.

• •

  Avoided: Delineating wetland boundaries using only one of the three required parameters.

• •

  Avoided: Treating phase I Environmental Site Assessment scope and recognized environmental conditions (RECs) as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing environmental baseline report with sampling results and wetland delineation. without showing how baseline water quality parameter selection tied to receiving-water designated use was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.14.1. Environmental Baseline — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.14.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.15.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.15.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.15.3 Input data and assumptions

• •
  $$Planned = 40$$
• •
  $$Valid = 34$$
• •
  $$Target completeness = 90$$
• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.15.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — data Quality Objectives (DQO) 7-step planning process; precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability (PARCC) parameters — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm EPA QA/G-4 (2006) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for data Quality Objectives (DQO) 7-step planning process.

• •

  Evaluate Completeness (%) = (valid results / total planned results) × 100 term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.

• •

  Test the result against outlier screening methods (e.g., Grubbs' test) and documented rejection criteria.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble data quality evaluation report with parcc scoring and completeness ratio. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.15.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.15.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.15.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Discarding an inconvenient data point as an 'outlier' without applying a documented statistical test.

• •

  Avoided: Reporting a dataset as complete without checking it against the originally planned sample count.

• •

  Avoided: Treating data Quality Objectives (DQO) 7-step planning process as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing data quality evaluation report with parcc scoring and completeness ratio. without showing how precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability (PARCC) parameters was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.15.1. Data Quality — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.15.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.16.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.16.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.16.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Project file structure and naming conventions for cross-discipline retrieval

• •

  Project condition: Version control practices for datasets that are revised as new field data arrives

• •

  Project condition: Backup and redundancy requirements (3-2-1 rule) for irreplaceable field data

• •

  Project condition: Metadata standards enabling data reuse by other disciplines without re-contacting the originator

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.16.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — project file structure and naming conventions for cross-discipline retrieval; version control practices for datasets that are revised as new… — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm ISO 19115 (2014) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 6.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for project file structure and naming conventions for cross-discipline retrieval.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against backup and redundancy requirements (3-2-1 rule) for irreplaceable field data.

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble data management plan document with file structure and backup policy. and submit it to the independent model checker for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.16.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.16.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.16.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Storing the only copy of raw field data on a single field laptop.

• •

  Avoided: Allowing designers to edit 'raw' data files directly instead of working from a QA-reviewed copy.

• •

  Avoided: Treating project file structure and naming conventions for cross-discipline retrieval as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing data management plan document with file structure and backup policy. without showing how version control practices for datasets that are revised as new field data… was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.16.1. Data Management — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.16.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.17.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.17.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.17.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) structure: task, hazard, control, residual risk

• •

  Project condition: Hierarchy of controls (elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, PPE)

• •

  Project condition: Underground/overhead utility strike prevention (call-before-you-dig, potholing)

• •

  Project condition: Emergency action plan requirements for remote or traffic-adjacent field sites

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.

4.17.4 Methodology

• •

  Assemble the inputs this module needs — job Hazard Analysis (JHA) structure; hierarchy of controls (elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, PPE) — each with a unit and a source record.

• •

  Confirm OSHA 29 CFR 1926 (current) is the adopted edition and locate Subpart P.

• •

  State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for job Hazard Analysis (JHA) structure.

• •

  Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.

• •

  Test the result against underground/overhead utility strike prevention (call-before-you-dig, potholing).

• •

  Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.

• •

  Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.

• •

  Assemble site-specific field safety plan with job hazard analysis. and submit it to the owner's construction manager for review.

Grader looks for: Method is justified against the project's conditions and validity range — not chosen because software offered it.

4.17.5 Analysis and calculations

Grader looks for: Equation → substitution with units → arithmetic → result, legible enough for an independent checker to repeat.

4.17.6 Results and verification

• •

  Demand ≤ capacity for the controlling limit state, with the code factor applied.

• •

  Deflection, settlement, freeboard, level of service, or equivalent within the adopted limit.

• •

  Identify the failure mode and confirm the factor of safety or load factor that guards it.

Grader looks for: Results are tabulated with D/C ratios and an explicit pass/revise status — never a screenshot without numbers.

4.17.7 Interpretation, limitations and link forward

• •

  Avoided: Defaulting to PPE as the primary control instead of first considering elimination or engineering controls.

• •

  Avoided: Beginning intrusive fieldwork before utility locates are confirmed and marked.

• •

  Avoided: Treating job Hazard Analysis (JHA) structure as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.

• •

  Avoided: Producing site-specific field safety plan with job hazard analysis. without showing how hierarchy of controls (elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, PPE) was satisfied.

Grader looks for: Ends with a decision, its limits, and the hand-off to the next section — not a summary of effort.

Figure 4.17.1. Field Safety — annotated engineering schematic showing the governing quantities carried through this module.

Table 4.17.1. Governing results with demand, capacity and demand-to-capacity ratio.

4.18.1 Purpose and scope

Grader looks for: States what was done, for which element or condition, and what decision the section supports — no restated proposal text.

4.18.2 Basis of design and governing criteria

Grader looks for: Names edition and clause for every standard actually used, and states which one controls where they overlap.

4.18.3 Input data and assumptions

• •

  Project condition: Investigation report structure: executive summary, methods, findings, limitations, appendices

• •

  Project condition: Cross-referencing every design-decision item back to a specific finding or dataset

• •

  Project condition: Documenting residual data gaps and their effect on design confidence

• •

  Project condition: Advisor review and sign-off workflow before proceeding to modeling phase

• •

  Assumption — Inputs are representative of the governing condition, not the average condition.

• •

  Assumption — Material and site properties are within the range where the method is valid.

• •

  Assumption — Loads, flows, or demands follow the adopted standard's prescribed combinations.

Grader looks for: Every number used later appears here first, with a source; assumptions carry a consequence statement.