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.
Laboratory Testing Program
Students design a laboratory testing program with test counts and methods matched to the design parameters required downstream.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Field & Laboratory · Plan, execute and document field and laboratory data collection to a defensible quality standard.
Deliverable: Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log.
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Laboratory Testing Program lecture and the worked example so you know what "Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log." 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.
Laboratory Testing Program
Students design a laboratory testing program with test counts and methods matched to the design parameters required downstream.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
The team opens week 3 believing laboratory testing program is a formality, because the proposal treated it in a single sentence. Students design a laboratory testing program with test counts and methods matched to the design parameters required downstream. The first review question is not about arithmetic — it is where the basis for index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs came from.
Running only index tests when the design decision (settlement) requires a performance test (consolidation). Because selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use, 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.
Adjacent property owners, excavation crews and the geotechnical engineer of record carry the consequence. On this module specifically, the exposure runs through test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings, and the cost of correction rises every week the subsurface interpretation and foundation recommendation moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs, and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does ASTM D2487 (2017), Full standard, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use, 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 subsurface interpretation and foundation recommendation or raise a change request against the locked baseline?
Photo 1. Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section C
Why this matters
Professional
A licensed engineer defending laboratory testing program cites ASTM D2487 (2017), Full standard, and shows the record behind each input. Your laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs controls the numbers this module hands forward. Selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use determines whether those numbers remain valid once conditions change.
Safety
The failure mode this module guards against is settlement, bearing failure or slope instability below the finished grade. It reaches people through turnaround time coordination between lab schedule and design milestone dates, 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 index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs; a late correction here is paid for as a change order, not a redline.
Environmental
Environmentally, this module fixes spoil handling, dewatering discharge and groundwater drawdown near the site. 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
Neighbors whose structures, utilities and streets sit within the zone of influence 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 index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Explain selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Interpret test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Compare turnaround time coordination between lab schedule and design milestone dates, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Apply ASTM D2487 (2017), Full standard, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 6.Reproduce the worked example for a boring reveals 3 distinct clay strata over 20 m depth and defend the interpretation of the result.
- 7.Produce laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. at a standard the geotechnical reviewer for the owner would accept without a second revision cycle.
Section E
Instructional content
Full lecture notes with figures and governing equations
Laboratory Testing Program — what the work actually is
Students design a laboratory testing program with test counts and methods matched to the design parameters required downstream. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs, and selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use. Both must be established from project evidence before anything downstream is credible.
In geotechnical engineering, this work is the input to the subsurface interpretation and foundation recommendation. Test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings — 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.
- Index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs. performance testing (triaxial, consolidation, CBR)
- Selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use
- Test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings
- Turnaround time coordination between lab schedule and design milestone dates
Photo 1. Laboratory Testing Program — what the work actually is in practice — Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Decision logic: the procedure that replaces a closed-form solution
Laboratory Testing Program 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. Index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs.
Write the acceptance criterion before you look at the result. Selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use — 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 — Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for laboratory testing program
ASTM D2487 (2017), Full standard, governs this module: Unified Soil Classification System governing index test selection ASTM D4318 (2017), Full standard, adds the second constraint: Atterberg limits test method referenced in the lab program
The safety case is explicit here. The failure mode is settlement, bearing failure or slope instability below the finished grade; the people exposed are adjacent property owners, excavation crews and the geotechnical engineer of record; the control that prevents it is turnaround time coordination between lab schedule and design milestone dates together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs.
- Adopted reference: ASTM D2487 (2017) — cite Full standard by number.
- Failure mode guarded: settlement, bearing failure or slope instability below the finished grade.
- Evidence produced: Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for laboratory testing program 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
The worked example — a boring reveals 3 distinct clay strata over 20 m depth — holds only while its assumptions hold. The duplicate tests provide a basic variance check on the compression index (Cc) used later in settlement calculations; skipping them removes the only lab-based estimate of test repeatability. 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 turnaround time coordination between lab schedule and design milestone dates. 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 — Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section F
Engineering workflow
Steps
- 1. 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.
- 2. Confirm ASTM D2487 (2017) is the adopted edition and locate Full standard.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs.
- 4. Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.
- 5. Test the result against test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings.
- 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 laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. and submit it to the geotechnical reviewer for the owner for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use? 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 — running only index tests when the design decision (settlement) requires a performance test (consolidation)?
Quality checklist
- Documented: index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs
- Documented: selecting test methods per USCS soil classification and the governing design use
- Documented: test frequency guidance relative to stratigraphic variability observed in borings
- ASTM D2487 Full standard cited by section number
- Procedure steps recorded in order with evidence
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Laboratory Testing Program — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
Review boring logs to identify distinct strata requiring characterization.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
ASTM D2487
2017 · Full standard
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Unified Soil Classification System governing index test selection
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
ASTM D4318
2017 · Full standard
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Atterberg limits test method referenced in the lab program
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
AASHTO T193
2013 · Full standard
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: California Bearing Ratio test method for pavement subgrade design
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
- Running only index tests when the design decision (settlement) requires a performance test (consolidation).
- Specifying one test for an entire 20 m boring that clearly contains multiple distinct strata.
- Treating index testing (Atterberg limits, gradation, moisture content) vs as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- 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.
- Recording the outcome of this module without recording the judgement and evidence that produced it.
- Missing turnaround time coordination between lab schedule and design milestone dates, which is exactly the path to settlement, bearing failure or slope instability below the finished grade.
- Collecting data before defining what decision the data has to support.
- Accepting a laboratory or field value without its method, date, operator and uncertainty.
- Omitting the safety check because the strength check passed.
- Referencing figures, tables, or sources that never appear in the reference list.
- Carrying an assumption forward after the governing condition changed, without re-checking the result.
Section L
Industry case study
Documented failure related to laboratory testing program
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 — geotechnical engineering 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 laboratory testing program, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Laboratory Testing Program
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 — Laboratory Testing Program
Your firm has been retained to deliver the laboratory testing program 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
Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log.
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
Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. 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'.
Laboratory testing program with method schedule and sample tracking log. 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 D2487 (2017)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
ASTM D4318 (2017)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
AASHTO T193 (2013)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Laboratory Testing Program — 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.