Construction Planning
Develops the sequencing, means-and-methods, and constructability logic that will govern how the design is actually built.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Planning Office · Define scope, deliverables, schedule, risk and stakeholders before any engineering calculation begins.
Deliverable: CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes.
Minimum tables, figures and equations for Construction Planning
Tables — at least 6
- Table — trial sections or sizes considered, with the capacity of each and the selection decision
- Table — final selected geometry for every element: dimensions, thickness, grade, spacing, elevation
- Table — slab, beam, column and shear wall schedule with governing demand
- Table — ultimate limit state check summary: demand, capacity, ratio, pass or fail, governing clause
- Table — serviceability check summary: deflection, crack width, settlement, freeboard or velocity against its limit
- Table — factors of safety achieved against the factor required, per failure mode
Figures — at least 4
- Figure — free body diagram of each isolated element, fully labelled with loads, reactions, dimensions and axes
- Figure — shear and moment (or pressure and velocity) diagrams for each force-carrying element
- Figure — dimensioned section or plan of each designed element
- Figure — capacity versus demand plot, interaction diagram, or rating curve as applicable
Equations — at least 8
- Equation — equilibrium equations written out for each free body (sum of forces and sum of moments, or continuity and energy)
- Equation — the internal force relations V(x) and M(x), or the momentum/thrust relation, used to compute each element's demand
- Equation — the resulting demand at the critical section of each element, with numeric substitution
- Equation — the capacity expression for each element type, shown with full numeric substitution and units
- Equation — the sizing criterion that sets the final dimension (for example required area, depth or diameter)
- Equation — each limit state check written as demand over capacity with numbers substituted
- Equation — the factor of safety calculation for each failure mode checked
- Equation — punching shear, drift and deflection checks with limits
Number every table and figure (Table 4.x, Figure 4.x), caption it, and refer to it by number in your text. Number displayed equations and show the substitution with units. These counts are minimums — add whatever else your design needs.
Engineering documentation standard — required in every Chapter 4 subsection
These rules are graded on every subsection. Work that misses them is capped on technical accuracy, exhibits, codes and communication, whatever the quality of the prose.
Code and standard references
- Every requirement, factor, coefficient, limit and allowable you apply cites the governing document AND the exact section, article or sub-article number — e.g. ACI 318-19 §22.5.5.1, AISC 360-22 Chapter J, Section J3.6, AASHTO LRFD 10th Ed. Article 3.6.1.2.2, ASCE 7-22 §12.8.1, ASTM D2487, state DOT manual section, local stormwater manual chapter.
- Give the edition or year of every document the first time it appears, then use a consistent short form.
- Where a code equation is used, quote the equation number (e.g. Eq. 22.5.5.1) next to your displayed equation.
- Where you depart from a code provision, state the clause you are departing from and the engineering justification.
- List every code, standard and manual actually used in a Codes and Standards table at the start of the subsection.
Citations for statements
- Every statement of fact, value taken from elsewhere, material property, soil parameter, rainfall depth, unit cost or published method carries an in-text citation (APA) to its source.
- Field and lab data cite the report, boring log, gauge, survey file or test number and its date.
- Manufacturer data cites the product literature and revision date; software results cite the program, version and model file name.
- Uncited assertions are treated as assumptions and must appear in the assumptions table with a justification.
- Every in-text citation resolves to a full entry in the reference list.
Step-by-step calculations
- Structure every calculation the same way: (1) objective, (2) governing code clause, (3) equation in symbolic form with the equation number, (4) definition of each symbol, (5) numerical substitution, (6) result with units, (7) comparison against the limit and the pass/fail statement.
- Show the substitution line — never jump from the formula to the answer.
- Number displayed equations sequentially (Eq. 4.1, 4.2, …) and refer to them by number in the text.
- State the load or flow combination governing each calculation by name.
- Carry consistent significant figures and round only at the reported result; state the rounding convention once.
- Present repetitive element checks in a calculation table with one row per element and the same column order throughout.
Free body diagrams and figures
- Draw a separate free body diagram for each isolated element — no combined sketches standing in for several members.
- Dimension every FBD: span, depth, thickness, cover, eccentricity, embedment, slope, pipe diameter, wall height — with the dimension lines and values shown.
- Label every force, pressure, reaction and moment with its symbol, magnitude and units, and show the sign convention and coordinate axes.
- Show supports and boundary conditions explicitly (pin, roller, fixed, elastic, buoyant, hydrostatic).
- Accompany each FBD with its shear, moment, thrust, pressure or hydraulic grade diagram at the same scale reference.
- Number and caption every figure (Figure 4.x) and refer to it by number in the narrative; add a scale or north arrow to plans.
Units and notation
- Every number in text, tables, figures and equations carries its unit — no bare numbers.
- Use one unit system throughout (US customary or SI); if both appear, give the converted value in parentheses consistently.
- Check dimensional homogeneity of each equation and say so — the units of both sides must match.
- Provide a nomenclature table defining every symbol with its unit.
Checking and verification
- Every calculation is checked by an independent route — hand check against software, alternative method, order-of-magnitude estimate, or a published worked example — and the check is shown, not just claimed.
- Report demand-to-capacity ratios and factors of safety against the required values, with the source clause for each required value.
- Include a verification/checking table: item, method of check, expected, obtained, difference, accept or revise.
- Sanity-check every result (magnitude, direction, plausibility) and state the conclusion.
- Record who checked the work and on what date; flag anything still unverified as an open item.
- State limitations and the range over which the result is valid.
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Construction Planning lecture and the worked example so you know what "CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes." has to contain.
Not sure how to start or how much depth is expected? Read the fully written model example for this deliverable first — it shows the structure, tables and level of justification your advisor grades against.
Project Start Studio — what this workspace teaches
Define scope, deliverables, schedule, risk and stakeholders before any engineering calculation begins.
- Project lifecycle: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring, closeout
- Work Breakdown Structure — decomposing a capstone into traceable work packages
- Scope statements, inclusions, exclusions and scope-creep control
- Scheduling: activity sequencing, durations, dependencies, critical path, Gantt baselines
- Risk identification, qualitative rating, and response planning
- Stakeholder identification, influence/interest mapping and communication plans
- Team charters, RACI responsibility assignment and conflict resolution
- Project documentation and configuration control for engineering deliverables
End-of-term milestones
- Tuesday, November 17, 2026 — Poster printed and ready. 36 in × 48 in poster finalized and printed one week before the November 24 showcase.
- Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Final document package uploaded for scoring. Chapters 4–5, calculation package, drawings and appendices uploaded in the app for advisor scoring.
- Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Poster presentation to faculty and industry. Wednesday poster session — printed 36 in × 48 in poster presented in person; industry reviewers score communication and impact.
- Wednesday, November 25, 2026 — Oral presentation and defense (scored). Scored oral presentation and defense held on Wednesday, November 25.
Construction Planning
Develops the sequencing, means-and-methods, and constructability logic that will govern how the design is actually built.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
The team opens week 4 believing construction planning is a formality, because the proposal treated it in a single sentence. Develops the sequencing, means-and-methods, and constructability logic that will govern how the design is actually built. The first review question is not about arithmetic — it is where the basis for work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing came from.
Sequencing activities without site logistics or access constraints. Because constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts, the error does not stay local: it is carried into the design of record that drawings, quantities and cost are generated from, and every downstream product inherits it before anyone notices.
Field crews, the contractor's bond and the owner's budget carry the consequence. On this module specifically, the exposure runs through critical path method (CPM) network logic, and the cost of correction rises every week the schedule, cost basis and means-and-methods plan moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing, and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does CSI MasterFormat (2020), Division 01 — General requirements, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts, and was it written before the result was known?
- Is Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF valid over the parameter range this project actually occupies?
- If the check fails, does the team revise the schedule, cost basis and means-and-methods plan or raise a change request against the locked baseline?
Photo 1. Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section C
Why this matters
Professional
A licensed engineer defending construction planning cites CSI MasterFormat (2020), Division 01 — General requirements, and shows the record behind each input. Your cpm construction schedule with wbs, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing is what makes Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF usable on this project rather than a formula copied from a reference. Get it wrong and every quantity derived from it is wrong by the same factor.
Safety
The failure mode this module guards against is a sequence, resource or temporary condition planned on paper that cannot be built safely. It reaches people through site logistics planning, which is why the safety check is recorded explicitly here rather than inferred from a passing strength or performance check.
Economic
The design of record that drawings, quantities and cost are generated from is priced from this work. Quantities, unit costs and schedule float all trace to work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing; a late correction here is paid for as a change order, not a redline.
Environmental
Environmentally, this module fixes haul, staging footprint, temporary erosion control and the waste from out-of-sequence work. Choosing conservatively without justification is not free — the excess shows up as material, energy and land that the project consumes for no measurable gain.
Community
Constructability review must explicitly address long-term material behavior, not only short-term erection sequencing. The neighborhood that absorbs traffic control, noise and access changes live with that outcome long after the semester ends.
Section D
Learning objectives
By the end of this module you will be able to:
- 1.Analyze work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Explain constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Interpret critical path method (CPM) network logic, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Compare resource loading and crew productivity rates, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Compute the governing quantity from Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF and Duration: D = Quantity / Production rate, with a unit audit on every term.
- 6.Apply CSI MasterFormat (2020), Division 01 — General requirements, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 7.Reproduce the worked example for a footing excavation of 480 cy is assigned a crew producing 60 cy/day and defend the interpretation of the result.
- 8.Produce cpm construction schedule with wbs, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. at a standard the owner's construction manager would accept without a second revision cycle.
Section E
Instructional content
Full lecture notes with figures and governing equations
Construction Planning — what the work actually is
Develops the sequencing, means-and-methods, and constructability logic that will govern how the design is actually built. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing, and constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts. Both must be established from project evidence before anything downstream is credible.
In construction engineering and management, this work is the input to the schedule, cost basis and means-and-methods plan. Critical path method (CPM) network logic — which is why this page asks you to record the source of every quantity, not just its value. The design of record that drawings, quantities and cost are generated from depends on it.
- Work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing
- Constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts
- Critical path method (CPM) network logic: predecessor/successor, float
- Resource loading and crew productivity rates
- Site logistics planning: crane radius, material staging, traffic control
Photo 1. Construction Planning — what the work actually is in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Governing relationships and how they are applied here
The relationships below govern construction planning. Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF; Duration: D = Quantity / Production rate — each is valid only inside the parameter range this project occupies, so state that range before substituting.
Constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts sets the values you place into these expressions. Any code-prescribed factor must match CSI MasterFormat (2020); a factor lifted from a different edition silently changes the answer.
Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF
- LS/ES = late/early start
- LF/EF = late/early finish
Duration: D = Quantity / Production rate
- Quantity = units of work
- Production rate = units/day for the assigned crew
Photo 2. Governing relationships and how they are applied here in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for construction planning
CSI MasterFormat (2020), Division 01 — General requirements, governs this module: Organizes construction planning documentation and scope AACE International RP 27R-03 (2003), Schedule classification, adds the second constraint: Governs schedule development and classification
The safety case is explicit here. The failure mode is a sequence, resource or temporary condition planned on paper that cannot be built safely; the people exposed are field crews, the contractor's bond and the owner's budget; the control that prevents it is site logistics planning together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing.
- Adopted reference: CSI MasterFormat (2020) — cite Division 01 — General requirements by number.
- Failure mode guarded: a sequence, resource or temporary condition planned on paper that cannot be built safely.
- Evidence produced: CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for construction planning in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Where this method stops being valid
The worked example — a footing excavation of 480 cy is assigned a crew producing 60 cy/day — holds only while its assumptions hold. The activity is not on the critical path; a 3-day slip is absorbable, but exceeding 3 days converts it to critical and delays the finish. Outside that envelope the arithmetic still returns a number, and the number is wrong in a way no unit check will catch.
For this project, the boundary you are most likely to push is site logistics planning. If you cross it, say so in writing, bound the error, and carry the limitation into your results chapter. A disclosed limitation is professional practice; a silent extrapolation is not.
Photo 4. Where this method stops being valid in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section F
Engineering workflow
Steps
- 1. Assemble the inputs this module needs — work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing; constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts — each with a unit and a source record.
- 2. Confirm CSI MasterFormat (2020) is the adopted edition and locate Division 01 — General requirements.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing.
- 4. Evaluate Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF and Duration: D = Quantity / Production rate term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.
- 5. Test the result against critical path method (CPM) network logic.
- 6. Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.
- 7. Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.
- 8. Assemble cpm construction schedule with wbs, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. and submit it to the owner's construction manager for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts? If not — revise the work, never the criterion.
- Would the correction change the design of record that drawings, quantities and cost are generated from? If yes — raise a change-control request before proceeding.
- Have you ruled out the most common error on this module — sequencing activities without site logistics or access constraints?
Quality checklist
- Documented: work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing
- Documented: constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts
- Documented: critical path method (CPM) network logic
- CSI MasterFormat Division 01 — General requirements cited by section number
- Units audited on every expression
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Construction Planning — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
Break the project into a work breakdown structure.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
CSI MasterFormat
2020 · Division 01 — General requirements
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Organizes construction planning documentation and scope
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
AACE International RP 27R-03
2003 · Schedule classification
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Governs schedule development and classification
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
Section J
Worked examples
Full engineering solution format
Section K
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
- Sequencing activities without site logistics or access constraints.
- Assuming textbook production rates without adjusting for site conditions.
- Failing to identify the true critical path because of missing logic ties.
- Treating work breakdown structure (WBS) and activity sequencing as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- Producing cpm construction schedule with wbs, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. without showing how constructability review — access, laydown, temporary works, sequencing conflicts was satisfied.
- Substituting into Total float: TF = LS − ES = LF − EF outside the range where it is valid, and reporting the number anyway.
- Missing site logistics planning, which is exactly the path to a sequence, resource or temporary condition planned on paper that cannot be built safely.
- Designing to the average condition when the governing condition is the controlling one.
- Freezing a design before the constructability and access review that would have changed it.
- Carrying an assumption forward after the governing condition changed, without re-checking the result.
- Reporting numbers without units, or mixing US customary and SI inside a single calculation chain.
- Citing the wrong edition of a standard, or citing a standard that does not govern the jurisdiction.
Section L
Industry case study
Big Dig Ceiling Panel Collapse (2006)
Boston Central Artery/Tunnel Project
Official findings
- NTSB found epoxy anchor creep failure was linked to construction sequencing and inspection gaps not caught during construction planning and QA.
Field observations
- The controlling assumption was documented nowhere in the design record.
- No independent check existed at the stage where the error entered the work.
Engineering interpretation
- Interpretation below is student analysis for instructional purposes, not an official finding.
- Map the failure to a step in your own workflow and state where your process would have caught it.
Lessons learned
- Constructability review must explicitly address long-term material behavior, not only short-term erection sequencing.
Source: Summarize the published investigation; cite it in your reference list. Do not reproduce copyrighted report text.
Section M
FE Civil exam connection
Handbook FE Reference Handbook — construction engineering and management section (record the section number from your handbook edition).
Exam topics
Handbook formulas
- CPM float
- Production rate duration
Weak results here feed your FE Civil Academy weak-area queue for targeted practice.
Question 1 of 2
Score: 0/2In construction planning, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Construction Planning
Complete this using your own capstone project data. Every field is saved to your project record and routed to your advisor with this module's submission.
Inputs and sources
Every value needs a traceable source.
| Quantity | Value | Unit | Source / record |
|---|
Assumptions and consequences
| Assumption | Basis | Consequence if wrong |
|---|
Self-check before submission
Section O
Design challenge
Consulting challenge — Construction Planning
Your firm has been retained to deliver the construction planning scope for a municipal client on a compressed schedule. Produce the technical position your firm would defend at a public meeting.
Client request: The client wants a defensible recommendation, the basis of design, and an honest statement of what remains unresolved.
Constraints
- Adopted local code edition governs; no exceptions without written variance.
- Budget and schedule are fixed; scope changes require change control.
- Public safety and accessibility requirements are non-negotiable.
Deliverables
- One-page basis of design
- Supporting calculation extract
- Risk and limitation statement
Evaluation
- Technical correctness
- Standard compliance
- Clarity of engineering judgment
- Honest treatment of uncertainty
Section P
Documentation workspace
Write the report section for this module in the academic editor
Section Q
File uploads
Accepted: PDF, DOCX, XLSX, CSV, PNG, JPG, ZIP
No files uploaded yet.
Section R
Deliverable and advisor review
CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes.
Submissions route to your assigned faculty advisor and are scored independently by faculty and administrator rubrics.
Reflection
What was the hardest engineering judgment in this module, and how did you resolve it?
Section S
ABET outcome mapping
CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Engineering design · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
CPM construction schedule with WBS, logic diagram, and constructability review notes. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Engineering design · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Section T
References and further study
CSI MasterFormat (2020)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
AACE International RP 27R-03 (2003)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Construction Planning — instructor design procedure
Course template for the calculation package format expected in the final report appendix.
NCEES FE Reference Handbook
Locate the equations used here and note the handbook section for exam recall.
Advisor meeting agenda item
Bring the unresolved decision from this module to your next weekly advisor meeting.