Poster & Exhibition
Produce the technical poster for the capstone exhibition.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Visual Communication · Design a poster that communicates the project in under two minutes of viewing.
Deliverable: Technical poster
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Poster & Exhibition lecture and the worked example so you know what "Technical poster" has to contain.
Conference Poster Studio — what this workspace teaches
Design a poster that communicates the project in under two minutes of viewing.
- Conference poster conventions and standard sizes
- Visual hierarchy and reading order
- Figure legibility at viewing distance; font size rules
- Charts designed for glanceability, not for a report
- Color, contrast and accessibility in poster design
- Text economy: headline findings instead of paragraphs
- QR codes and supplementary digital material
- Print preparation: resolution, bleed, file format
End-of-term milestones
- Friday, November 20, 2026 — Poster printed and ready. 36 in × 48 in poster finalized and printed for the faculty and industry showcase — one to two weeks before December.
- Tuesday, November 24, 2026 — Final document package uploaded for scoring. Chapters 4–5, calculation package, drawings and appendices uploaded in the app for advisor scoring.
- Wednesday, November 25, 2026 — Poster presentation to faculty and industry. Printed 36 in × 48 in poster presented in person; industry reviewers score communication and impact.
- Wednesday, December 2, 2026 — Oral presentation and defense (scored). Scored oral presentation two to three days after the end of November.
Poster & Exhibition
Produce the technical poster for the capstone exhibition.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
The team opens week 12 believing poster & exhibition is a formality, because the proposal treated it in a single sentence. Produce the technical poster for the capstone exhibition. The first review question is not about arithmetic — it is where the basis for apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition came from.
All inputs traceable to data, code or the approved proposal. Because document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision, the error does not stay local: it is carried into the defended report that represents the program to external reviewers, 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 produce evidence an advisor can verify independently, and the cost of correction rises every week the project record moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition, and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Which adopted document governs this decision, and who confirmed it applies in this jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision, 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
Poster & Exhibition is judged on whether an independent engineer can follow your reasoning to the same conclusion. Your technical poster is the evidence that they can.
Technical
Apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition controls the numbers this module hands forward. Document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision 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 produce evidence an advisor can verify independently, which is why the safety check is recorded explicitly here rather than inferred from a passing strength or performance check.
Economic
The defended report that represents the program to external reviewers is priced from this work. Quantities, unit costs and schedule float all trace to apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition; 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 apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Explain document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Interpret produce evidence an advisor can verify independently, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Produce technical poster 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
Poster & Exhibition — what the work actually is
Produce the technical poster for the capstone exhibition. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition, and document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision. 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. Produce evidence an advisor can verify independently — which is why this page asks you to record the source of every quantity, not just its value. The defended report that represents the program to external reviewers depends on it.
- Apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition.
- Document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision.
- Produce evidence an advisor can verify independently.
Photo 1. Poster & Exhibition — 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
Decision logic: the procedure that replaces a closed-form solution
Poster & Exhibition 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. Apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition.
Write the acceptance criterion before you look at the result. Document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision — 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 poster & exhibition
No single code section governs this module, so the constraint set comes from the approved proposal, the owner's requirements and professional practice. Write those constraints down; an unwritten constraint is not enforceable at review.
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 produce evidence an advisor can verify independently together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition.
- Adopted reference: confirm with the jurisdiction before you rely on it.
- Failure mode guarded: a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Evidence produced: Technical poster.
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for poster & exhibition 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
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 produce evidence an advisor can verify independently. 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 — apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition; document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision — each with a unit and a source record.
- 2. Confirm which document governs, and record who verified that it applies here.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition.
- 4. Execute the documented procedure, recording each judgement and the evidence behind it.
- 5. Test the result against produce evidence an advisor can verify independently.
- 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 technical poster and submit it to the advisor of record for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision? If not — revise the work, never the criterion.
- Would the correction change the defended report that represents the program to external reviewers? If yes — raise a change-control request before proceeding.
- Have you ruled out the most common error on this module — all inputs traceable to data, code or the approved proposal?
Quality checklist
- Documented: apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition
- Documented: document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision
- Documented: produce evidence an advisor can verify independently
- Governing document cited
- Procedure steps recorded in order with evidence
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- Technical poster attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Poster & Exhibition — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
Start from the confirmed inputs: geometry, materials, loads or flows, each with a source.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
Section J
Worked examples
Full engineering solution format
Section K
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
- All inputs traceable to data, code or the approved proposal
- Units consistent and dimensionally verified
- Governing code or standard cited with clause number
- Independent check performed and initialed
- Deliverable file attached and named to convention
- Treating apply the approved Capstone I methodology to poster & exhibition as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- Producing technical poster without showing how document assumptions, governing standards and units for every decision was satisfied.
- Recording the outcome of this module without recording the judgement and evidence that produced it.
- Missing produce evidence an advisor can verify independently, which is exactly the path to a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Rehearsing the slides without rehearsing the questions the panel will actually ask.
- Submitting a report whose appendices were never checked against the body's cited numbers.
- Using inputs that no field record, laboratory report, or published source supports.
- Stopping at output and skipping verification — an unverified number is not an engineering result.
- Confusing results (what the analysis produced) with conclusions (what the engineer decided).
Section L
Industry case study
Documented failure related to poster & exhibition
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 poster & exhibition, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Poster & Exhibition
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 — Poster & Exhibition
Your firm has been retained to deliver the poster & exhibition 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
Technical poster
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
Technical poster with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Chapter quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Technical poster with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Chapter quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Section T
References and further study
Poster & Exhibition — 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.