Validation
Performs and documents validation as part of the formal verification gate that must pass before results are reported.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Analysis & Interpretation · Statistically validate results, compare against literature and interpret them as an engineer.
Deliverable: Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off.
Minimum tables, figures and equations for Validation
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 Validation lecture and the worked example so you know what "Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off." 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.
Results & Analytics Lab — what this workspace teaches
Statistically validate results, compare against literature and interpret them as an engineer.
- Descriptive statistics and appropriate summary measures
- Hypothesis testing, p-values and practical vs. statistical significance
- Regression, R², residual analysis and model adequacy
- Confidence intervals and error bars
- Uncertainty propagation through engineering calculations
- Verification vs. validation of engineering results
- Comparing results against published literature
- Designing figures and tables that carry the argument
- Engineering interpretation: what the numbers mean for the decision
- Stating limitations and framing recommendations
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.
Validation
Performs and documents validation as part of the formal verification gate that must pass before results are reported.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
The team opens week 7 believing validation is a formality, because the proposal treated it in a single sentence. Performs and documents validation as part of the formal verification gate that must pass before results are reported. The first review question is not about arithmetic — it is where the basis for verification confirms 'solving the equations right' came from.
Setting the acceptance tolerance after seeing how close the two results are. Because independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical, the error does not stay local: it is carried into the evidence that the numbers are both solved right and right for reality, 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 documented acceptance criterion set before the check is performed, not after, and the cost of correction rises every week the project record moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes verification confirms 'solving the equations right', and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009), §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical, and was it written before the result was known?
- Is NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)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. 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 validation cites ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009), §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology, and shows the record behind each input. Your validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Verification confirms 'solving the equations right' is what makes NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)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 escalation path when a check fails, which is why the safety check is recorded explicitly here rather than inferred from a passing strength or performance check.
Economic
The evidence that the numbers are both solved right and right for reality is priced from this work. Quantities, unit costs and schedule float all trace to verification confirms 'solving the equations right'; 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
A documented independent verification step, performed with an acceptance criterion set in advance, is the control that failure investigations repeatedly find missing. The residents and agencies who inherit the completed work 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.Explain verification confirms 'solving the equations right', using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Interpret independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Compare documented acceptance criterion set before the check is performed, not after, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Justify traceable version control linking the checked calculation to the design record, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Compute the governing quantity from NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)², with a unit audit on every term.
- 6.Apply ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009), §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 7.Reproduce the worked example for an independent checker reproduces the governing calculation for validation using a different method and gets a result within… and defend the interpretation of the result.
- 8.Produce validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. 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
Validation — what the work actually is
Performs and documents validation as part of the formal verification gate that must pass before results are reported. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: verification confirms 'solving the equations right', and independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical. 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. Documented acceptance criterion set before the check is performed, not after — which is why this page asks you to record the source of every quantity, not just its value. The evidence that the numbers are both solved right and right for reality depends on it.
- Verification confirms 'solving the equations right'; validation confirms 'solving the right equations' (ASME V&V terminology)
- Independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical
- Documented acceptance criterion set before the check is performed, not after
- Traceable version control linking the checked calculation to the design record
- Escalation path when a check fails: revise, re-verify, and re-document
Photo 1. Validation — 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 validation. NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)² — each is valid only inside the parameter range this project occupies, so state that range before substituting.
Independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical sets the values you place into these expressions. Any code-prescribed factor must match ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009); a factor lifted from a different edition silently changes the answer.
NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)²
- Oi = observed
- Pi = predicted
- Ō = mean observed
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 validation
ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009), §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology, governs this module: Governs the verification/validation vocabulary and process used across this phase ASCE Quality in the Constructed Project (3rd Ed., 2012), MOP No. 73, QA/QC review, adds the second constraint: Governs the independent-check and QA audit practice
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 escalation path when a check fails together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: verification confirms 'solving the equations right'.
- Adopted reference: ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009) — cite §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology by number.
- Failure mode guarded: a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Evidence produced: Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for validation 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 — an independent checker reproduces the governing calculation for validation using a different method and gets a result within tolerance of… — holds only while its assumptions hold. The independent check confirms the primary result; document both results, the method used, and the checker's name in the verification record. 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 escalation path when a check fails. 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 — verification confirms 'solving the equations right'; independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst,… — each with a unit and a source record.
- 2. Confirm ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009) is the adopted edition and locate §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for verification confirms 'solving the equations right'.
- 4. Evaluate NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)² term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.
- 5. Test the result against documented acceptance criterion set before the check is performed, not after.
- 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 validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. and submit it to the advisor of record for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind verification confirms 'solving the equations right' traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an independent method where practical? If not — revise the work, never the criterion.
- Would the correction change the evidence that the numbers are both solved right and right for reality? If yes — raise a change-control request before proceeding.
- Have you ruled out the most common error on this module — setting the acceptance tolerance after seeing how close the two results are?
Quality checklist
- Documented: verification confirms 'solving the equations right'
- Documented: independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an…
- Documented: documented acceptance criterion set before the check is performed, not after
- ASME V&V 20-2009 §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology cited by section number
- Units audited on every expression
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Validation — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
State the acceptance criterion before performing the check.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
ASME V&V 20-2009
2009 · §1-3 — Verification and validation methodology
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Governs the verification/validation vocabulary and process used across this phase
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
ASCE Quality in the Constructed Project
3rd Ed., 2012 · MOP No. 73, QA/QC review
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Governs the independent-check and QA audit practice
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
- Setting the acceptance tolerance after seeing how close the two results are.
- Having the original analyst 'independently' check their own work.
- Treating a passed verification check as validation of the underlying model assumptions.
- Treating verification confirms 'solving the equations right' as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- Producing validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. without showing how independent check performed by someone other than the original analyst, using an… was satisfied.
- Substituting into NSE = 1 − Σ(Oi − Pi)² / Σ(Oi − Ō)² outside the range where it is valid, and reporting the number anyway.
- Missing escalation path when a check fails, which is exactly the path to a decision made without a traceable basis.
- Confusing verification (solved right) with validation (right model), and claiming one as the other.
- Running the independent check with the same spreadsheet that produced the original number.
- 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
I-35W Mississippi River Bridge Collapse (2007)
Minneapolis, MN
Official findings
- NTSB found the original gusset-plate design calculation error was never caught because no independent verification check was ever performed against the governing load case.
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
- A documented independent verification step, performed with an acceptance criterion set in advance, is the control that failure investigations repeatedly find missing.
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
- Percent difference / residual
- NSE, RMSE
Weak results here feed your FE Civil Academy weak-area queue for targeted practice.
Question 1 of 2
Score: 0/2In validation, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Validation
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 — Validation
Your firm has been retained to deliver the validation 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
Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off.
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
Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Verification · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Validation record documenting method, acceptance criterion, result, and independent-checker sign-off. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Verification · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Section T
References and further study
ASME V&V 20-2009 (2009)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
ASCE Quality in the Constructed Project (3rd Ed., 2012)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Validation — 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.