This deliverable is not counted toward your grade
Project Start and Technical Implementation (site, data and investigation) pages are required practice but are not counted toward your final grade. Your engineering grade comes from Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.
Data Collection Plan
Students write a field data collection plan that specifies methods, equipment, QA/QC checks, and acceptance criteria for every planned measurement.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Field & Laboratory · Plan, execute and document field and laboratory data collection to a defensible quality standard.
Deliverable: Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria.
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Data Collection Plan lecture and the worked example so you know what "Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria." 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.
Site Investigation Lab — what this workspace teaches
Plan, execute and document field and laboratory data collection to a defensible quality standard.
- Planning a subsurface, structural or traffic field investigation
- Instrumentation selection, resolution, accuracy and calibration records
- GPS/GNSS positioning: datums, projections, RTK vs. handheld accuracy
- GIS data capture, attribute schemas and coordinate metadata
- Land surveying: traverses, levelling, closure and error adjustment
- Sampling strategy: representative sampling, spacing, depth intervals, replicates
- ASTM/AASHTO laboratory testing procedures and reporting requirements
- Chain of custody, sample labelling and preservation
- QA/QC: duplicates, blanks, repeatability and data validation rules
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.
Data Collection Plan
Students write a field data collection plan that specifies methods, equipment, QA/QC checks, and acceptance criteria for every planned measurement.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
A civil engineering practice team hits data collection plan in week 2, with the project record already promised to the owner. Students write a field data collection plan that specifies methods, equipment, QA/QC checks, and acceptance criteria for every planned measurement. The reviewer starts at the end and works backwards, and the chain breaks at standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records.
Sending a crew to the field without a calibrated instrument log. Because chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis, the error does not stay local: it is carried into the data foundation every later calculation silently depends on, and every downstream product inherits it before anyone notices.
The owner, the reviewing agency and the engineer of record carry the consequence. On this module specifically, the exposure runs through qA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality, and the cost of correction rises every week the project record moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records, and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does ASTM D6235 (2019), Full standard, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis, and was it written before the result was known?
- Is the documented procedure valid for the conditions this project actually presents?
- If the check fails, does the team revise the project record 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 data collection plan cites ASTM D6235 (2019), Full standard, and shows the record behind each input. Your field data collection plan with sops and qa/qc criteria. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records controls the numbers this module hands forward. Chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis determines whether those numbers remain valid once conditions change.
Safety
The failure mode this module guards against is a decision made without a traceable basis. It reaches people through field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later, which is why the safety check is recorded explicitly here rather than inferred from a passing strength or performance check.
Economic
The data foundation every later calculation silently depends on is priced from this work. Quantities, unit costs and schedule float all trace to standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records; a late correction here is paid for as a change order, not a redline.
Environmental
Environmentally, this module fixes material use, land disturbance and the waste stream generated by rework. 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
The residents and agencies who inherit the completed work inherit whatever this module decides — performance, accessibility, cost of ownership and resilience are set here, not at the ribbon-cutting.
Section D
Learning objectives
By the end of this module you will be able to:
- 1.Analyze standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Explain chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Explain qA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Interpret field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Apply ASTM D6235 (2019), Full standard, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 6.Produce field data collection plan with sops and qa/qc criteria. at a standard the advisor of record would accept without a second revision cycle.
Section E
Instructional content
Full lecture notes with figures and governing equations
Data Collection Plan: from proposal statement to engineering product
Students write a field data collection plan that specifies methods, equipment, QA/QC checks, and acceptance criteria for every planned measurement. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records, and chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis. Both must be established from project evidence before anything downstream is credible.
In civil engineering practice, this work is the input to the project record. QA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality — which is why this page asks you to record the source of every quantity, not just its value. The data foundation every later calculation silently depends on depends on it.
- Standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records
- Chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis
- QA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality
- Field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later
Photo 1. Data Collection Plan: from proposal statement to engineering product in practice — Field review: the conversation in which a scope, a constraint or a decision is actually settled.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Decision logic: the procedure that replaces a closed-form solution
Data Collection Plan is governed by a documented procedure rather than a single expression, so the decision logic is the deliverable: what you accept, what you reject, and on what evidence. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records.
Write the acceptance criterion before you look at the result. Chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis — recording the criterion afterwards lets it be shaped to fit the number you happened to get.
Photo 2. Decision logic: the procedure that replaces a closed-form solution 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 data collection plan
ASTM D6235 (2019), Full standard, governs this module: Direct-push soil sampling procedure applicable to field data collection SOPs EPA QA/G-5 (2002), Sec. 3, adds the second constraint: Guidance on quality assurance project plans for environmental data collection
The safety case is explicit here. The failure mode is a decision made without a traceable basis; the people exposed are the owner, the reviewing agency and the engineer of record; the control that prevents it is field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records.
- Adopted reference: ASTM D6235 (2019) — cite Full standard by number.
- Failure mode guarded: a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Evidence produced: Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for data collection plan in practice — Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Where this method stops being valid
Every method has a domain of validity. State the range of geometry, loading, material behaviour or flow regime over which your approach holds, and state what you would do instead beyond it.
For this project, the boundary you are most likely to push is field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later. 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 — Compression test on a concrete cylinder: the measurement behind every f′c used in design.
Wikimedia Commons, public domain
Section F
Engineering workflow
Steps
- 1. 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.
- 2. Confirm ASTM D6235 (2019) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records.
- 4. Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.
- 5. Test the result against qA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality.
- 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 field data collection plan with sops and qa/qc criteria. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis? If not — revise the work, never the criterion.
- Would the correction change the data foundation every later calculation silently depends on? If yes — raise a change-control request before proceeding.
- Have you ruled out the most common error on this module — sending a crew to the field without a calibrated instrument log?
Quality checklist
- Documented: standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records
- Documented: chain-of-custody protocol for samples destined for laboratory analysis
- Documented: qA/QC duplicate and blank sampling rates for defensible data quality
- ASTM D6235 Full standard cited by section number
- Procedure steps recorded in order with evidence
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Data Collection Plan — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
Select the measurement method for each data-needs item.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
ASTM D6235
2019 · Full standard
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Direct-push soil sampling procedure applicable to field data collection SOPs
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
EPA QA/G-5
2002 · Sec. 3
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Guidance on quality assurance project plans for environmental data collection
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
- Sending a crew to the field without a calibrated instrument log.
- Omitting duplicate samples, leaving no way to estimate measurement variance later.
- Treating standard operating procedures (SOPs) per measurement type and required calibration records as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- 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.
- Recording the outcome of this module without recording the judgement and evidence that produced it.
- Missing field data forms design — capturing enough metadata to reconstruct the measurement later, which is exactly the path to a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Collecting data before defining what decision the data has to support.
- Accepting a laboratory or field value without its method, date, operator and uncertainty.
- Citing the wrong edition of a standard, or citing a standard that does not govern the jurisdiction.
- Leaving boundary conditions undefined so the model is not reproducible by an independent checker.
- Using inputs that no field record, laboratory report, or published source supports.
Section L
Industry case study
Documented failure related to data collection plan
A constructed civil works project where this module's decision was made incorrectly or skipped.
Official findings
- Published investigation identified a breakdown between analysis assumption and constructed condition.
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
- Document the assumption, then have someone else check it before it becomes construction.
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 — civil engineering practice section (record the section number from your handbook edition).
Exam topics
Handbook formulas
Weak results here feed your FE Civil Academy weak-area queue for targeted practice.
Question 1 of 2
Score: 0/2In data collection plan, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Data Collection Plan
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 — Data Collection Plan
Your firm has been retained to deliver the data collection plan 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
Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria.
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
Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Data quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Field data collection plan with SOPs and QA/QC criteria. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Data quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Section T
References and further study
ASTM D6235 (2019)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
EPA QA/G-5 (2002)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Data Collection Plan — 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.