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.
Site Investigation Program
Students assemble a multi-discipline investigation program with sample-size justification for the number of test locations.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Field & Laboratory · Plan, execute and document field and laboratory data collection to a defensible quality standard.
Deliverable: Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule.
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Site Investigation Program lecture and the worked example so you know what "Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule." 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.
Site Investigation Program
Students assemble a multi-discipline investigation program with sample-size justification for the number of test locations.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
A civil engineering practice team hits site investigation program in week 2, with the project record already promised to the owner. Students assemble a multi-discipline investigation program with sample-size justification for the number of test locations. The reviewer starts at the end and works backwards, and the chain breaks at sample size determination.
Selecting a boring count from habit ('one per pier') instead of from the required statistical confidence. Because spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs, 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 coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule, and the cost of correction rises every week the project record moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes sample size determination, and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019), Sec. 6, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs, and was it written before the result was known?
- Is n = (z·σ/E)² valid over the parameter range this project actually occupies?
- If the check fails, does the team revise the project record or raise a change request against the locked baseline?
Photo 1. Compression test on a concrete cylinder: the measurement behind every f′c used in design.
Wikimedia Commons, public domain
Section C
Why this matters
Professional
A licensed engineer defending site investigation program cites ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019), Sec. 6, and shows the record behind each input. Your investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Sample size determination is what makes n = (z·σ/E)² 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 decision made without a traceable basis. It reaches people through contingency triggers, 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 sample size determination; 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 sample size determination, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Explain spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Explain coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Interpret balancing statistical confidence against investigation budget and schedule, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Compute the governing quantity from n = (z·σ/E)², with a unit audit on every term.
- 6.Apply ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019), Sec. 6, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 7.Reproduce the worked example for determine how many SPT borings are needed to estimate mean undrained shear strength within ±5 kPa at 95%… and defend the interpretation of the result.
- 8.Produce investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. 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
Site Investigation Program: from proposal statement to engineering product
Students assemble a multi-discipline investigation program with sample-size justification for the number of test locations. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: sample size determination, and spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs. 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. Coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule — 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.
- Sample size determination: n = (z·σ/E)² for estimating a population mean within tolerance E
- Spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs. site variability class
- Coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule
- Balancing statistical confidence against investigation budget and schedule
- Contingency triggers: when field conditions require adding investigation points mid-program
Photo 1. Site Investigation Program: from proposal statement to engineering product in practice — Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Governing relationships and how they are applied here
The relationships below govern site investigation program. n = (z·σ/E)² — each is valid only inside the parameter range this project occupies, so state that range before substituting.
Spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs sets the values you place into these expressions. Any code-prescribed factor must match ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019); a factor lifted from a different edition silently changes the answer.
n = (z·σ/E)²
- n = required number of samples
- z = standard normal deviate for confidence level (1.96 for 95%)
- σ = estimated population standard deviation
- E = allowable margin of error
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 site investigation program
ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019), Sec. 6, governs this module: Guide for monitoring well design applicable to sampling network density AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (9th Ed.), Sec. 10.4, adds the second constraint: Minimum subsurface exploration spacing for structure foundations
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 contingency triggers together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: sample size determination.
- Adopted reference: ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019) — cite Sec. 6 by number.
- Failure mode guarded: a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Evidence produced: Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for site investigation 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 — determine how many SPT borings are needed to estimate mean undrained shear strength within ±5 kPa at 95% confidence, given… — holds only while its assumptions hold. Budget allows only 10 borings; the team must either accept a wider confidence interval (~±7.5 kPa) or supplement with CPT soundings, which are cheaper per point, to raise the effective sample count. 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 contingency triggers. 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 — sample size determination; spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs — each with a unit and a source record.
- 2. Confirm ASTM D5092/D5092M (2019) is the adopted edition and locate Sec. 6.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for sample size determination.
- 4. Evaluate n = (z·σ/E)² term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.
- 5. Test the result against coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule.
- 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 investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind sample size determination traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs? 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 — selecting a boring count from habit ('one per pier') instead of from the required statistical confidence?
Quality checklist
- Documented: sample size determination
- Documented: spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs
- Documented: coordinating disciplines (geotech, survey, environmental, structural) on a shared field schedule
- ASTM D5092/D5092M Sec. 6 cited by section number
- Units audited on every expression
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Site Investigation Program — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
Estimate variability (σ) of the governing subsurface or environmental property from regional data.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
ASTM D5092/D5092M
2019 · Sec. 6
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Guide for monitoring well design applicable to sampling network density
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
9th Ed. · Sec. 10.4
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Minimum subsurface exploration spacing for structure foundations
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
- Selecting a boring count from habit ('one per pier') instead of from the required statistical confidence.
- Ignoring known site heterogeneity (fill zones, old channels) when estimating σ.
- Treating sample size determination as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- Producing investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. without showing how spatial sampling density guidance for geotechnical borings vs was satisfied.
- Substituting into n = (z·σ/E)² outside the range where it is valid, and reporting the number anyway.
- Missing contingency triggers, 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.
- Confusing results (what the analysis produced) with conclusions (what the engineer decided).
- Ignoring constructability: a design that cannot be built safely is not a completed design.
- Omitting the safety check because the strength check passed.
Section L
Industry case study
Documented failure related to site investigation 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 — civil engineering practice section (record the section number from your handbook edition).
Exam topics
Handbook formulas
- n = (z·σ/E)²
Weak results here feed your FE Civil Academy weak-area queue for targeted practice.
Question 1 of 2
Score: 0/2In site investigation program, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Site Investigation 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 — Site Investigation Program
Your firm has been retained to deliver the site investigation 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
Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule.
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
Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. 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'.
Investigation program document with sample-size calculation and field schedule. 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 D5092/D5092M (2019)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (9th Ed.)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Site Investigation 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.