Chapter 5 — Geotechnical Investigation Planning and Scope

A well-planned geotechnical investigation is the foundation of every successful railroad engineering project. Planning errors — insufficient boring depths, wrong spacing, missing laboratory tests — cannot be corrected during analysis; they produce reports that fail engineering review, delay project schedules, and increase total project cost. This chapter establishes the systematic planning process we apply on every railroad geotechnical program, from the first desktop review through final boring layout approval. Key outputs of the planning phase are: a boring location plan dimensioned in feet and referenced to railroad mileposts, a boring depth matrix derived from stress influence calculations in English units, a laboratory testing assignment sheet linked to the specific design questions the investigation must answer, and a project-specific health and safety plan that satisfies the host railroad's Right-of-Way Protection (RWP) requirements.

Railroad client references: AREMA MRE Ch. 1 §1.4 (subgrade requirements); CSXT Engineering Standard for Geotechnical Investigations; NSR Engineering Standards Manual (NSR ESM) §3.2; UPRR Engineering Instruction Manual (UPRR EIM) §GT-100; BNSF Engineering Instructions (BNSF EI) — Geotechnical; CPKC Track Standards §Geo; Amtrak Engineering Standards — Geotechnical; CN Engineering Standards (CN ES) — Geotechnical; G&W Engineering Bulletins — Subsurface Investigations.

Planning a geotechnical investigation for a railroad client is not overhead — it is a professional service that prevents costly scope errors and keeps the investigation aligned with the design question the railroad's engineering department needs answered. On railroad programs that operate under Professional Services Agreements (PSA), planning is typically the first deliverable under a task order: a written Investigation Plan or Boring Plan memorandum that the railroad project manager reviews and approves before field work begins.

USACE EM 1110-1-1804 §2-1 defines the objective of a geotechnical investigation as obtaining information that permits design of a safe and economic structure. This definition translates directly to railroad practice: every boring, every sample, and every laboratory test must be traceable to a specific design parameter needed by the railroad's engineering team.

The most common planning failure in railroad geotechnical work is designing the investigation around what is convenient to access rather than what the design requires. A convenient boring is one that can be reached with standard drill rig access from a paved road or an open field. But the critical foundation condition for a railroad bridge abutment, retaining wall, or track embankment is often in a location that requires a track window, specialty equipment, or an ROW access permit — not a convenient open-field location. We plan investigations around the design question first; we solve the access problem second.

Reference graphics

Case study: 5.14.1 No investigation: “the site across the road is the same” (Look 2023), in §5.14 Case Studies.

Project management · Miller (2009)

Deliverable-Oriented Breakdown of a Geotechnical Investigation Scope

Miller argues that a project plan should be organized around deliverables rather than activities, because the client cares about what the project hands over, not the list of tasks performed. Deliverables are written as nouns. They are arranged in a product breakdown structure (PBS), the top component of the WBS, drawn either as an organization chart or as an indented outline. The single topmost deliverable is level zero; each lower level is produced by successive decomposition of the level above.

A complete PBS holds three kinds of deliverables:

• Client deliverables – items the client must furnish (documents, site access, facilities, funding). Miller shows them on their own leg so they are not forgotten.
• Process deliverables – the “glue” (plans, specifications, inventories, strategies) that the client may never see but without which the project deliverables cannot be produced. They can amount to roughly a quarter of the workload and are easiest to find when grouped on one leg.
• Project deliverables – the items promised to the client.

The fourth level is usually enough detail to control the work. Go deeper where a deliverable is subcontracted (the subcontractor defines two further levels below it), where the deliverable is unfamiliar to the team, or where a team member is unknown to the manager. Miller rejects arbitrary rules such as “no activity longer than 40 hours”; each lowest-level deliverable should define one complete activity. His worked example decomposes a one-day recognition event for 400 employees through Events → Children’s Program → Rides → individual rides.

For railroad work: make level zero the thing the railroad is buying, for example “Geotechnical data report and repair recommendations, embankment at MP 112.4.” Level 1 legs might be Field Data, Laboratory Data, Analyses, Reports, Process Deliverables and Client Deliverables. Put the railroad’s obligations on the client leg: right-of-entry and track-access approval, track time and flagging or other roadway worker protection, utility and signal cable records, as-built drawings and the slow-order and maintenance history of the site. Group the safety plan, job-briefing plan, boring location plan, drilling subcontract and chain-of-custody procedure on the process leg. Because drilling is normally subcontracted, have the driller break the drilling deliverable into two more levels (mobilization, each boring log with its sample set, grouting records). A PBS of this kind also makes a clear scope exhibit for the proposal and shows the client exactly what each fee line produces.

Source: Miller, D. P. (2009). Building a Project Work Breakdown Structure: Visualizing Objectives, Deliverables, Activities, and Schedules. ESI International Project Management Series. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group), pp. 23–25, 31–33, 45–49. Summarized and paraphrased; figures reproduced for internal reference. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Project management · Oberlender (2000)

Influence Curve and Front-End Scope Definition

Oberlender frames every project as passing through owner’s study, preliminary engineering, detailed design, procurement and construction. His central argument, shown as two opposing curves, is that the ability to influence quality, cost and schedule is highest at the start and falls steadily, while the cost of implementing a change is lowest at the start and rises steeply once procurement and construction begin. Savings are made early, not at the start of construction.

From this he draws several working rules:

• The owner’s study must end with stated objectives, minimum quality and performance requirements, an approved maximum budget and a required completion date. If any one of these is missing, the project starts in the wrong direction.
• Separate what is needed from what is wanted. The best source for needs is the people who will operate the finished facility.
• Scope comes first; the budget and schedule are then built to match it. A scope checklist (his Table 3-1 lists site access, soils and bearing, permits and environmental constraints, among other items) keeps the definition from being a one-line description.
• When work is requested before it is defined, either do it on a time-and-materials basis until scope can be fixed, or define an assumed scope with a matching budget and schedule, and re-price any deviation before proceeding.

He also cites the Construction Industry Institute’s Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI): 70 scope elements, each rated 1 (complete) to 5 (poor), weighted to a maximum of 1,000 points. In the CII study, projects that scored below 200 performed significantly better than those that scored above 200.

For railroad work: The geotechnical investigation sits at the high-influence end of the curve. Boring locations, depths and lab assignments are fixed while the repair concept (undercut and blanket, shear key, wall, ground improvement or culvert replacement) is still open. Once a track window is booked and materials are ordered, changing direction costs track time as well as money. Before mobilizing a drill rig, confirm with the railroad’s project engineer the purpose of the work, the performance target (for example, removing a slow order or meeting a settlement tolerance), the access and work-window constraints, and the not-to-exceed budget. Record any assumptions in the scope letter so that a later change, such as adding a culvert crossing or extending the limits after a new slip, is visibly a change and is priced as one.

Source: Oberlender, G. D. (2000). Project Management for Engineering and Construction, 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 33–41, 119–121. Summarized and paraphrased; figures reproduced for internal reference. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Project management · Cretu et al. (2011)

Estimate Range Versus Design Maturity — Why Early Investigation Narrows the Upper Tail

Cretu, Stewart and Berends describe four estimate levels (planning, scoping, design, and final/letting), each with its own purpose, method and expected accuracy. The accuracy range narrows as design matures, but it is not symmetrical: the upper end sits much farther above the baseline than the lower end sits below it, and the upper end moves toward the baseline faster as project-specific information is gained. The authors read this as evidence that economic and political pressures push early numbers down, and they warn reviewers to watch for it. They place reasonably firm project definition at roughly 30 percent design. Before that point the estimate range is driven mostly by scope uncertainty; after it, by unit-cost and market uncertainty plus discrete risk events.

Their illustration uses a project that ends up costing $100 million. Read from their chart, the plausible range at about 2 percent design runs from roughly $50 million to $300 million, tightens to about $70–150 million at 30 percent, and is close to $95–110 million at letting. In the same way, the “miscellaneous item allowance” that covers undefined scope typically falls from 30–50 percent at planning, to 20–30 percent at scoping, to 10–20 percent during design, and to zero at letting, when every item should be defined. The authors also call for a written basis of estimate (BOE) that records scope, exclusions, assumptions, data sources and the threats and opportunities known when the estimate was made. They urge reporting early estimates as ranges, because the first number given is the one everyone remembers.

For railroad work: On subgrade rehabilitation, slide repair and culvert replacement projects, the upper tail of the estimate is driven mainly by ground conditions: depth to competent material, soft or organic foundation soils, groundwater, and the extent of fouled ballast or a failed subgrade layer. That makes the investigation the main way to pull the upper end down before the railroad sets a capital budget. When scoping a program, show the client the current estimate range, identify which geotechnical unknowns control its upper end, and describe how the proposed borings, CPT soundings or GPR would narrow it. Record the geotechnical assumptions behind each estimate in a BOE-style note, such as an assumed undercut depth, assumed rock line or assumed drainage outfall, so that later changes can be traced to new subsurface data rather than read as estimating error.

Source: Cretu, O., Stewart, R. and Berends, T. (2011). Risk Management for Design and Construction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 18–25. Summarized and paraphrased; figures reproduced for internal reference. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Every railroad geotechnical investigation begins with a desktop review before a single boring is planned. The desktop review assembles all available prior subsurface and surface information for the project corridor and produces a preliminary geologic model that frames the entire investigation strategy.

Reference graphics

5.2.1 Sources of Prior Information

Existing boring data: Railroad clients maintain subsurface databases of varying quality. CSXT and UPRR maintain central engineering databases that may contain prior boring logs for the project corridor. NSR Engineering Services in Roanoke archives prior geotechnical reports and can provide boring logs for NSR network segments. BNSF Engineering in Fort Worth maintains a GIS-based boring database for capital projects. For G&W subsidiary networks, prior subsurface data is often sparse or held at the subsidiary level — contact the G&W corporate engineering group early to determine what is available.

Published geologic maps: USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps and state geologic surveys provide bedrock and surficial geology. The USGS National Geologic Map Database is the primary digital resource. Specific attention: karst terrain (Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky — CSXT, UPRR, CN corridors), residual soil from granitic gneiss (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia — NSR, CSXT corridors), loess deposits (Mississippi Valley — UPRR, CN, BNSF corridors), expansive clay (Gulf Coast, Texas — UPRR, BNSF, CPKC corridors).

USDA Web Soil Survey: Provides surficial soil mapping at 1:24,000 scale. Useful for preliminary identification of potentially soft or problematic subgrades along new alignment corridors.

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM): Identify flood-prone zones and potential high-water conditions for bridge approaches, embankments, and drainage structures on all nine railroad clients' corridors.

Aerial photographs and satellite imagery: Historical aerial photograph archives (USGS EarthExplorer) reveal past land use, former fill areas, evidence of slope movement, and changes in drainage patterns that may not appear in current satellite imagery.

LiDAR digital elevation models: State and federal LiDAR datasets provide 1- to 2-ft contour resolution suitable for preliminary slope geometry characterization and drainage analysis. Most state DOTs and USGS provide free LiDAR downloads.

Prior geotechnical reports: Obtain all prior geotechnical reports for the project corridor, including reports prepared for adjacent projects on the same railroad. For NSR and CN, prior reports may reside in the railroad's internal engineering archive rather than with the geotechnical consultant.

Reference graphics

Maintenance records are investigation data

Change in track geometry under traffic comes from one of two sources: cumulative deformation of the ballast and subballast, or movement of the subgrade. Field observation combined with maintenance records at chronic spots tells the two apart. Frequent resurfacing at the same location, when it traces to the subgrade, points to low bearing capacity. Ask the client for:

• Surfacing and tamping history.
• Geometry-car trends.
• Slow-order records.

Build up a district file of soil and geology maps that later projects can reuse. A deterioration rate that rises from one maintenance cycle to the next is a useful trigger for a substructure investigation.

After Selig & Waters (1994), chs. 4, 10 and 15. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Desk study, route stages and mapping scales

Profillidis starts every geotechnical investigation with available documents (topographic, geologic and hydrogeologic maps, aerial photographs, historical investigation records) and a site reconnaissance, to understand the likely problems and to plan the main study. For new-line design he ties the investigation to the design stages:

Table 5-4. Design stages and mapping for a new railway line

Stage	Mapping scale	Scope
Preliminary design	1:50,000 or 1:25,000, aerial / satellite imagery	2–4 possible routes; horizontal and longitudinal profiles; major structures, utilities and first cost estimate
Outline design	1:5,000; cross-sections every 330 ft	2–3 routes within a corridor 164 ft wide (flat terrain) to 1.2 mi or more (mountains); subgrade and drainage, bridges and tunnels, construction planning
Final design	1:2,000–1:1,000 (difficult terrain); 1:1,000–1:500 (urban)	Balance of speed, curvature, gradient and soil-mechanics constraints; minimize future maintenance

For existing lines built decades ago, he notes that a full analytical survey is usually not needed, but a general knowledge of the subgrade’s basic mechanical behavior is essential.

Figures · click to zoom

After Profillidis (2014), §9.2.2, §9.3, §14.13–14.14, Fig. 14.12. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Read the landform to predict the soil

Similar landforms are built the same way and contain similar materials. Identify the landform and you can predict the material and how it will behave. Almost all railway terrain has published geologic and soil mapping, and cross-referencing problem sites against it is a useful desktop habit.

• Glacial till was compressed beneath the ice and performs almost like rock; eskers are meltwater channels full of sand and gravel (good borrow); moraines, kames and drumlins each have characteristic materials.
• Sensitive (Champlain Sea) clay in the St. Lawrence Lowlands can hold a steep slope undisturbed but flows when remolded. Treat any movement in mapped areas as an escalation trigger.
• River terraces attracted early builders because they are flat benches above the channel. They contain silts and clays in low-energy settings and sands and gravels in high-energy ones, are consistent along a valley, and are still active.
• Alluvial fans grade from coarse at the apex to finer and better-sorted outward. Dunes are mainly a sand-encroachment nuisance.

Figures · click to zoom

After Geotechnology for Railroaders Program, Module 2; §02–06. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Case study: 5.14.2 A buried creek the ground model missed: deep basement dewatering (Look 2023), in §5.14 Case Studies.

Before finalizing boring locations and depths, we confirm which standards govern the investigation. Railroad clients do not all use the same standards; mixing them up is a professional error that creates review problems and can require costly revisions.

AREMA MRE Chapter 1 — Roadway and Ballast is the common technical baseline for subgrade-related investigations on all nine railroad clients. AREMA MRE Chapter 1 §1.4 (Subgrade) requires that the stability of the roadbed subgrade be determined before specifying ballast and subballast thickness. AREMA MRE Chapter 8 — Structures governs foundation design for bridges, retaining walls, and culverts using Cooper E-80 design live load.

CSXT Engineering Standard for Geotechnical Investigations specifies CSXT-specific requirements for boring spacing on new sidings and embankment widening projects, minimum boring depth multipliers for embankments over soft ground, and CSXT's RWP and flagging requirements that must be reflected in the project-specific Health and Safety Plan.

NSR Engineering Standards Manual (NSR ESM) §3.2 specifies NSR's requirements for geotechnical investigation planning, including NSR's preferred boring log format, coordinate system requirements (Virginia State Plane, FIPS 4501), and NSR's requirement that the investigation plan be submitted to NSR Engineering Services for comment before field work begins.

UPRR Engineering Instruction Manual (UPRR EIM) §GT-100 governs UPRR's geotechnical investigation standards, including UPRR's requirements for investigation scope on new siding and yard projects and UPRR's flag and protect requirements for ROW access.

BNSF Engineering Instructions (BNSF EI) specify BNSF's investigation standards. For BNSF intermodal yards — a significant recurring project type — BNSF EI provides minimum boring spacing and depth requirements for crane rail foundation design under Cooper E-80 plus intermodal lift equipment loads.

Amtrak Engineering Standards — Geotechnical governs Amtrak NEC and other Amtrak corridor projects. Amtrak ES requires a higher level of investigation detail than most freight railroad standards, reflecting the Class 6 and Class 7 track geometry tolerances (¾ in. and ½ in. cross-level, respectively) that NEC operations must maintain.

CPKC Track Standards §Geo governs investigation requirements post-merger. Confirm current applicable standards with CPKC Engineering at project initiation; legacy CP and legacy KCS standards may apply to specific network segments pending harmonization.

CN Engineering Standards (CN ES) — Geotechnical govern CN investigation requirements in both US and Canadian operations. For Canadian operations, Transport Canada Railway Safety Act (TC RSA) regulatory requirements must also be reflected.

G&W Engineering Bulletins — Subsurface Investigations provide G&W corporate engineering guidance for subsidiary networks. G&W subsidiary networks vary significantly in track class, loading, and operating characteristics; the applicable FRA track class must be confirmed for each G&W subsidiary project.

Reference graphics

The following boring spacing criteria are consistent with AREMA MRE Chapter 1, USACE EM 1110-1-1804 Chapter 2, and the specific railroad client standards cited.

Milepost referencing: All boring locations must be described in terms of railroad mileposts and offset from track centerline (in feet, left or right, looking in the direction of increasing milepost). GPS coordinates (NAD 83, decimal degrees or State Plane in feet) are required in addition to milepost references. Railroad mileposts are the primary location reference for all railroad engineering documents.

Reference graphics

Supplemental figures · LEVI Library

Boring depth must be sufficient to characterize all soil and rock materials that will influence the performance of the planned structure or earthwork. Minimum boring depths for each project type are determined by the applicable stress influence criterion, structure geometry, and client standard requirements.

Reference graphics

Laboratory testing must be assigned during planning — not after borings are complete. The testing matrix is organized by project feature, governing design calculation, and required test data.

Reference graphics

BORING LOG — PROJECT: [Railroad] [Project Name] [Milepost]

Boring No.: B-1 Date Drilled: [Date] Sheet: 1 of 1

Location: STA 10+50 (MP 347.2 + 0.05 mi), 12 ft Right of CL, Looking Incr. MP

Ground Surface Elevation: 342.4 ft (NAVD 88) Drill Rig: CME-75 Track-Mounted

Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) 3.25-in. ID Hammer: Auto SPT, 140 lb

Driller: [Name], Certified CSXT RWP Logger: [PE Name], PE

DEPTH SAMPLE BLOW DESCRIPTION

(ft) TYPE COUNT (USCS — ASTM D 2488/D 2487)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

0-2 - - Fill: silty CLAY, gray-brown, soft, moist

(CL per USCS, AASHTO A-6)

2-5 SPT-1 3/5/7 CLAY, gray-brown, soft to medium, wet

N₆₀ = 12 (corrected) MC = 38%

5-10 ST-1 - Shelby Tube (undisturbed sample for consolidation)

CLAY, gray, soft, wet; slight organic odor

MC = 44%, LL = 62, PI = 34 (CH)

10-15 SPT-3 2/4/4 CLAY, gray, soft; N₆₀ = 8; MC = 46%

15-20 SPT-4 4/5/6 CLAY, gray-tan, medium; N₆₀ = 11

20-25 SPT-5 6/8/10 CLAY, tan, medium-stiff; N₆₀ = 18

25-30 SPT-6 8/12/15 Transition to Sandy CLAY (SC); N₆₀ = 27

30-35 SPT-7 11/15/18 SAND, fine, silty, tan (SM); N₆₀ = 33

35-40 SPT-8 15/22/28 SAND, fine-medium, tan-gray (SP-SM); N₆₀ = 50

40 --- --- End of boring at 40 ft (No rock encountered)

Water Level: 6.2 ft below ground surface (measured 24 hr after drilling)

Casing: 3.25-in. HSA, pulled and abandoned

Reference graphics

LL = Liquid Limit; PL = Plastic Limit; PI = Plasticity Index; MC = Natural Moisture Content; γ_t = Total Unit Weight; q_u = Unconfined Compressive Strength (UUC); NP = Non-Plastic

Reference graphics

• Figure 5-1: Boring Location Plan — topographic base map with boring locations, milepost references, and railroad right-of-way limits (scale 1" = 100 ft or 1" = 200 ft as required)
• Figure 5-2: Geologic Cross Section — track centerline to boring depth, with interpreted stratigraphic layers and groundwater elevation
• Figure 5-3: Stress Influence Diagram — 2:1 method showing boring depth determination for embankment centerline boring

Reference graphics

1. Always obtain the railroad's current RWP certification requirements before scheduling field crews. Certification requirements change, and an expired RWP certificate discovered at the gate means a wasted mobilization and rescheduled track window. Call the railroad's RWP coordinator the week before mobilization to verify.
2. Plan conservative boring depths and trim in the field if warranted. It is far less expensive to terminate a boring 10 ft early because you have already encountered competent material than it is to mobilize a second boring campaign because the first borings were too shallow.
3. Treat the 2:1 stress method result as a minimum, not a target. Client engineering standards frequently require depths that exceed the stress influence calculation, particularly for Class I railroad mainline bridge and embankment projects. Check the applicable engineering standard before finalizing depths.
4. Do not skip the planning memorandum on emergency response projects. Even on emergency task orders, document your boring plan — locations, depths, and rationale — in writing before drilling begins. This documentation protects both the firm and the client if the design is ever challenged.
5. Coordinate boring locations with railroad signal engineering. Signal cables, transponders, and grade crossing detection circuits are buried within the railroad ROW and are not reliably located by 811 locates. Request the railroad's signal department to mark signal infrastructure locations before drilling within 30 ft of the track centerline.
6. Amtrak NEC projects: NEC track windows are extremely constrained. Plan boring access for overnight possession windows (typically 11 PM to 5 AM); portable drill rigs that can be assembled and removed within 1 hour are required. Coordinate with Amtrak Capital Engineering a minimum of 6 weeks before field mobilization to secure track window scheduling.

Reference graphics

Q1. You are planning a geotechnical investigation for a new 6,500-ft siding for UPRR in southeastern Nebraska. The terrain is flat (slope < 1%) and the subsurface geology is Quaternary alluvial deposits — predominantly silty clay and fine sand. UPRR EIM §GT-100 requires a minimum of 1 boring per 1,500 ft on new sidings. The siding fill height is 6 ft with a base width of 60 ft. Determine (a) the number of borings required per UPRR EIM, (b) the minimum boring depth using the 2:1 stress influence method, and (c) whether the UPRR minimum or the stress-influence criterion governs.

A: (a) UPRR minimum = 6,500 ft ÷ 1,500 ft = 4.33 → minimum 5 borings (round up); add 1 boring at each end = 5 borings minimum. (b) 2:1 stress method: Q = γ_fill × H_fill = 125 × 6 = 750 psf. Strip load, B = 60 ft. Condition: 750 × 60 / (60 + z) ≤ 0.10 × 118 × z. Solve: 45,000 / (60 + z) = 11.8z → 45,000 = 11.8z(60 + z) = 708z + 11.8z². Trial z = 30 ft: 11.8 × 30 × 90 = 31,860 — too low. Trial z = 45 ft: 11.8 × 45 × 105 = 55,755 ≥ 45,000. Try z = 40 ft: 11.8 × 40 × 100 = 47,200 ≥ 45,000. → z_min ≈ 38 ft. (c) UPRR EIM §GT-100 for new siding embankment over alluvium requires minimum 25 ft below existing ground for fill ≤ 10 ft. The stress-influence result of 38 ft governs. Recommended boring depth = 40 ft (round to next 5-ft increment).

Q2. During the desktop review for a new NSR bridge replacement on the Piedmont Division, you find a 1967 boring log with SPT refusal at 22 ft. The 1967 log notes "weathered granite" at 18 ft. The new bridge will have drilled shaft foundations. What is your minimum rock boring depth for the new investigation, and what rock quality information must the boring provide per USACE EM 1110-1-1804 and AREMA MRE Chapter 8?

A: Minimum boring depth = estimated rock surface (22 ft) + minimum 20 ft of rock core into the zone being considered for shaft bearing = at least 42 ft total depth; 20 ft of NX or NQ core below the rock surface. Per USACE EM 1110-1-1804 §5-7, the rock core program must provide: (1) Rock Quality Designation (RQD) computed on ≥4.0-in. intact pieces per ASTM D 6032; (2) percent core recovery; (3) unconfined compressive strength (q_u) by point load index test or laboratory UCS; (4) description of weathering, fracture frequency, fracture fill character, and dominant fracture orientation. Per AREMA MRE Chapter 8, the drilled shaft bearing capacity computation requires q_u and a rock socket design that accounts for joint frequency, fracture condition, and weathering grade. We require at least 10 ft of core achieving RQD ≥ 50% and core recovery ≥ 80% before designating a horizon as competent bearing.

Q3. A CSXT emergency response task order requires you to mobilize to a slope failure by 6:00 AM. It is currently 10:00 PM. You have four personnel available, but only two hold current CSXT RWP certification. The other two hold expired CSXT RWP certificates (expired 4 months ago). Can the two with expired certificates enter the ROW if escorted by the two with current RWP? What is the correct course of action?

A: No — under CSXT's RWP program, personnel with expired certificates cannot enter the ROW under escort with a current RWP holder as a substitute for their own certification. CSXT's RWP program requires each individual who enters the ROW to hold a current, valid CSXT RWP certificate. Escorting covers visitors (e.g., owners, non-technical observers) with no independent ROW access requirement, not technical personnel who must enter the ROW to perform geotechnical work. Correct course of action: (1) The two personnel with current CSXT RWP mobilize immediately; they can begin the site assessment with a two-person crew. (2) Contact CSXT's RWP training coordinator at the emergency contact number to determine whether CSXT's emergency protocols provide any accelerated process for temporary ROW access for the expired-certificate personnel. (3) Plan to get the two expired personnel into the next available CSXT RWP class immediately — never allow a field team member's certification to expire during an active project. (4) Document in the project file that the limitation was identified and the emergency crew deployed with two certified personnel.

Q4. A G&W subsidiary project in Mississippi involves widening an existing embankment by 12 ft on each side (4-ft raise, resulting new base width = 88 ft). The existing embankment is 20 ft high. Your borings at the original embankment centerline reach 45 ft, but the G&W corporate engineering group asks whether you need borings outside the existing embankment toe (60 ft from CL). Explain your analysis using the 2:1 stress influence method to determine whether borings at the toe are necessary.

A: Yes — borings beyond the existing embankment toe are required. The critical stress zone extends laterally as well as vertically; the 2:1 stress distribution produces non-trivial stress increases at the proposed toe location. Existing centerline stress: γ × H = 125 × 20 = 2,500 psf. At the proposed new toe (60 ft from CL), the vertical stress from the widened embankment (B = 88 ft, half-width = 44 ft from CL) at 0 ft depth is already the overburden from the embankment fill, which the existing toe boring does not capture in terms of lateral extent. More critically, the slope stability analysis for the widened embankment requires shear strength data along the potential failure surface, which extends well beyond the current embankment toe — typically 0.5 to 1.0 × embankment height beyond the toe (10 to 20 ft). Borings should be placed at 20 to 30 ft beyond the proposed new toe (approximately 80 ft from CL) to characterize the natural foundation soils in the zone of the critical failure surface. Without these borings, the slope stability FS for the widened embankment is undocumented. Per AREMA MRE Chapter 1 §1.4, embankment stability must be verified before widening design is finalized.

Q5. You are preparing the investigation plan memorandum for an Amtrak NEC project in New Jersey. The NEC is operated as Class 7 (125 mph) at this location. The project involves replacing a signal bridge. Identify the five most important planning requirements that distinguish this investigation from a comparable investigation for a Class 4 freight railroad bridge project, referencing Amtrak Engineering Standards and applicable regulatory standards.

A: The five most important distinguishing requirements:

1. Track window constraints (Amtrak ES): NEC track windows are limited to overnight possessions (typically 11 PM – 5 AM, 6 hours maximum). The boring plan must specify portable drill rigs that can be assembled and removed within 60 minutes of window start and end. Planning must begin 6 weeks before mobilization to secure NEC possession scheduling.
2. Geometry tolerance standard (49 CFR Part 213 Subpart G + Amtrak ES): Class 7 cross-level limit is ½ in.; Class 4 limit is 1½ in. Settlement predictions must be compared to the Class 7 tolerance, not Class 4. This typically requires consolidation testing on every identifiable soft layer, not just the most critical one.
3. Amtrak ES peer review requirement: All 60% and 100% geotechnical submissions are subject to formal Amtrak Engineering peer review under Amtrak's Quality Management Program. The investigation plan must be structured to support this review level — significantly more documentation than a typical Class 4 freight project requires.
4. 25-Hz signal circuit protection (Amtrak): NEC signal infrastructure uses 25-Hz alternating current track circuits. Drilling must not induce stray currents or vibration that disrupts NEC signal systems. The investigation plan must include Amtrak signal engineering clearance for each boring location within 30 ft of track centerline.
5. Catenary structure clearance (Amtrak ES): The NEC uses 11,000-V 25-Hz overhead catenary. Drill rig mast height must be confirmed to maintain the required electrical clearance from catenary wire and structure. The investigation plan must document the drill rig mast height and the minimum clearance from the catenary wire at each boring location, per Amtrak Engineering's electrical safety requirements.

Table I-3: Emergency Response Contact Structure by Railroad Client (completed)

We establish and document these contact chains at the beginning of every PSA engagement — not when the emergency occurs. The geotechnical firm's project manager and the on-call geotechnical engineer must have direct mobile phone numbers for every contact in the chain. We verify these contacts annually and update them when railroad personnel change roles.

I.8.2 Emergency Repair Guidance by Failure Type

We use the following framework when formulating emergency repair recommendations. Recommendations must be tailored to the specific conditions observed; this table provides starting points, not substitutes for engineering judgment.

Failure Type	AREMA MRE Reference	Typical Emergency Repair Approach
Shallow slope failure (H < 10 ft)	MRE Ch. 1 §4.9	Slope regrading to stable angle; rock buttress at toe; surface drainage improvement; erosion control blanket
Deep slope failure (H > 10 ft)	MRE Ch. 1 §4.9, MRE Ch. 8 §8	Staged material removal; soldier pile wall; concrete block or gabion buttress; soil nail wall with geogrid facing
Embankment settlement or sinkhole	MRE Ch. 1 §4.5	Compaction grouting; flowable fill void filling; temporary timber cribbing or bridging between ties
Bridge scour — abutment or pier	MRE Ch. 8 §7, FHWA HEC-23	Emergency riprap placement; geotextile bag placement; temporary sheet pile or H-pile; flow diversion
Subgrade failure or mud boil	MRE Ch. 1 §4.5, CSXT/NSR/UPRR ES	Undercutting and replacement with granular fill; ballast injection; geotextile/geogrid installation under ballast
Retaining wall distress	MRE Ch. 8 §9	Temporary rock buttress at wall base; sheet pile wall parallel to track; soil anchor installation

Reference graphics

Technical quality is necessary but not sufficient for a successful railroad geotechnical practice. How we communicate — the speed, format, and clarity of our client communications — determines whether the railroad can actually use our work in their decision process. Different railroad clients have different communication cultures; we adapt to each.

Project management · CIOB (2014)

A Formal Change-Control Procedure and Change Register

The CIOB Code defines change broadly: anything that affects the scope or brief, cost (including whole-life cost), time milestones, risk allocation, the working of the team, or any project process. It sets out a single route for every change:

1. A change request is made, and the requirement is clarified and documented.
2. The project team reports the technical, health-and-safety, schedule and cost consequences, each assessed by the appropriate specialist.
3. The project manager reports to the client. If the consequences are not accepted, the change is reviewed and modified, and the loop repeats.
4. Formal authorization is obtained, the change order is issued by the contract administrator, and the change is entered in the master schedule and cost plan.

Supporting tools:

• Change order register. Records what the change is, who raised it, why, whether it is discretionary or not, its cost and time implications, the date by which a client decision is needed, and the decision.
• Design development control sheet. Records the issue, the options considered, the recommendation, the affected cost-plan item, and any transfer of client contingency.
• Delegated financial limits. Instructions below an agreed value can be given without going back to the client each time. Above that limit, the client must be consulted.
• One source of instructions. All instructions go to the contractor in writing from a single source, and nothing is valued without one. The register is cross-referenced to RFIs and claims and reported to the client at regular intervals.

The Code stresses that controlling change during design is far more effective than during construction, and that time is often more expensive than the material change itself.

For railroad work: On consulting assignments for a railroad, agree at the kick-off:

• Who on the railroad side can authorize added borings, added lab testing or an extended limit of investigation, and up to what value.
• How fast a decision is needed so the drill crew and flagger are not left standing.

Keep a simple change register on the project. Log each scope change (a new boring offset because of a signal cable, a CPT replaced by a boring because of refusal, an added cross-section after a new tension crack) with its cost and schedule effect. Send the register with each progress report. The railroad then sees the cumulative effect before the invoice does.

Source: Chartered Institute of Building (2014). Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development, 5th ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 184–186, 236–238. Summarized and paraphrased; figures reproduced for internal reference. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Every signed-and-sealed geotechnical deliverable for any railroad client is subject to independent peer review before issuance. The standard for "independent" is clear: the reviewer had no involvement in the investigation, analysis, or previous drafts of the document being reviewed.

Client-specific peer review considerations:

• NSR: NSR's Engineering Services department in Roanoke conducts its own independent technical review of all 60% and 100% submissions. Our independent peer review must be completed and all comments resolved before we issue to NSR; do not submit a document to NSR review with known open peer review comments.
• Amtrak NEC: Amtrak's Engineering department conducts a formal technical review of all 60% and 100% submissions under Amtrak's Quality Management Program. Amtrak applies Amtrak ES criteria in its review; our peer reviewer must be familiar with Amtrak ES requirements.
• CN Canadian operations: TC RSA-regulated projects in Canada may require TC review of geotechnical findings that affect safety-critical infrastructure. CN's Engineering department coordinates TC filings; our role is to provide technically complete documentation that supports CN's regulatory submission.
• CPKC: Post-merger CPKC is developing harmonized review processes. Confirm the current 60% and 100% review process with CPKC Engineering at the beginning of each project.
• UPRR: UPRR Engineering Instruction Manual specifies internal review requirements for capital projects above defined thresholds. We confirm UPRR's current internal review process with the UPRR Region Engineer at project initiation.

Reference graphics

Q1. You are providing geotechnical services to a BNSF Railway project manager for a new intermodal yard expansion in the Texas Gulf Coast region. Your investigation reveals a 12-ft-thick soft marine clay deposit at 15 to 27 ft depth. Your consolidation test results show C_c = 0.72 and c_v = 4.8 ft²/year. The BNSF project manager tells you that the crane rail foundations must be ready for concrete placement in 16 months. Which BNSF Engineering Instruction provisions govern your response, and what is your professional obligation to the project manager before the formal report is issued?

A: The applicable BNSF standard is the BNSF Engineering Instructions for Structures (BNSF EI Structures volume) for crane rail foundation design, supplemented by AREMA MRE Chapter 8 for foundation bearing capacity and settlement criteria. The governing performance criterion for crane rail differential settlement is contained in BNSF's intermodal facility design guidance, which specifies maximum differential rail settlement of ¼ in. per 50 ft — a tolerance far tighter than standard embankment subgrade requirements.

Our professional obligation to the BNSF project manager before the formal report is issued: Communicate the settlement timeline problem immediately — within 48 hours of receiving the consolidation test results. The calculation is straightforward: 90% primary consolidation of a 12-ft layer (single drainage assumed) with c_v = 4.8 ft²/year occurs at t₉₀ = 0.848 × H_dr² / c_v = 0.848 × 144 / 4.8 = 25.4 years without treatment. Even with PVD drains at 4-ft triangular spacing, achieving 90% consolidation in 16 months requires that surcharge loading must begin within weeks, not months, of our report issuance. We issue a preliminary technical memorandum — not a formal report — within 48 hours of receiving the consolidation data, clearly stating the schedule implication and recommending an immediate scope addition for a ground improvement feasibility study. We copy the BNSF Division Engineer and the BNSF Capital Engineering project manager.

Q2. A G&W subsidiary railroad in Louisiana is pursuing FRA CRISI grant funding for a 12,000-ft new siding on their network. The G&W corporate engineering group asks your firm to develop the geotechnical investigation scope. The subsidiary's General Manager suggests that G&W's prior inspection of the alignment is sufficient and no borings are needed. Explain your response, referencing applicable standards.

A: We respectfully decline to endorse a scope that eliminates borings for a 12,000-ft new siding on an FRA CRISI grant-funded project. Our response to the General Manager, coordinated through the G&W corporate engineering group, covers three points:

First, regulatory requirement: FRA CRISI grant funding requires that design be supported by site-specific subsurface investigation meeting applicable professional engineering standards. AREMA MRE Chapter 1 §1.4 requires that subgrade quality be determined before track design can establish blanket layer thickness and compaction specifications. A visual inspection does not produce the quantitative data required by AREMA MRE or by the FRA grant program's technical standards.

Second, professional liability: Signing a geotechnical report that supports a design without performing a defensible investigation creates direct professional liability for the engineer of record. If the siding subgrade fails after construction — due to soft soils, high water table, or organic deposits that a visual inspection would not detect — the geotechnical consultant and the G&W railroad share liability for the design deficiency.

Third, practical cost argument: The cost of a minimum reconnaissance investigation for a 12,000-ft siding — approximately $60,000 to $90,000 — is 0.5 to 0.75% of a typical siding construction cost of $12 million to $15 million. Discovery of soft soils requiring ground improvement during construction routinely costs $500,000 to $1,500,000 in change orders. The investigation is not an optional expense; it is risk management that the FRA grant program explicitly expects.

Q3. Your firm holds a PSA with NSR and is executing a task order for a bridge replacement investigation on the NSR Piedmont Division. The 60% GDR is 80% complete when NSR issues a revised edition of the NSR Engineering Standards Manual. The revision changes the minimum pile embedment depth requirement for the pile type you have already designed. What are your obligations, and what do you tell the client?

A: We notify the NSR project manager immediately — the same day we become aware of the revised NSR ESM edition — that a revision has been issued that affects our current design. We do not complete and issue the 60% GDR under the superseded standard without first confirming with NSR Engineering how to proceed.

Our specific obligations: (1) Obtain the current revised NSR ESM from NSR Engineering; confirm which edition and effective date applies to this project. (2) Review our pile embedment calculations against the new minimum depth requirement. If our calculations already meet or exceed the new minimum, document that compliance explicitly in the revised 60% GDR and reference the new ESM edition. (3) If our calculated pile embedment is less than the new minimum, we must revise our pile design recommendations before issuing the 60% GDR — we cannot issue a document that we know conflicts with the current version of the applicable standard. (4) If the revised minimum depth requires additional borings to confirm competent material at the new depth, we prepare a supplemental boring scope for NSR authorization before proceeding.

We tell the client: directly, transparently, and without delay. We do not quietly revise the document and hope the client does not notice which edition of the ESM we applied. Professional integrity and our PSA obligation require full transparency about standards changes that affect our work.

Q4. You are providing emergency geotechnical response to CSXT for a slope failure at milepost 347.2 on the CSXT Southern Division. After your site assessment, you determine that the failure is a shallow rotational failure with H = 8 ft, and the slope is currently stabilized with no active movement observed. Track geometry indicates a surface deviation of 1.8 in. over 31 ft at the slide location. The current CSXT track classification is Class 4 freight at 60 mph. What is your track restriction recommendation, and what is your technical basis?

A: Per FRA Track Safety Standards 49 CFR Part 213, the surface runoff limit for Class 4 track is 3 in. over 62 ft; a 1.8-in. deviation over 31 ft projects to approximately 3.6 in. over 62 ft if the deviation is uniform — which would exceed the Class 4 surface limit and technically require a speed restriction or correction. However, since the actual measured deviation is 1.8 in. over 31 ft and applies to a localized failure zone rather than a uniform settlement, we apply engineering judgment.

Our recommendation: Reduce operating speed to 25 mph (Class 2 restriction) over the affected 300-ft zone while emergency investigation and repair proceed. Technical basis: (1) The 1.8-in. surface deviation indicates the failure has affected the track structure, justifying an operational restriction. (2) The slope is currently stabilized with no active movement, justifying a slow order rather than a full closure. (3) Class 2 at 25 mph reduces dynamic wheel loads (DLF from ~1.4 to ~1.15), reducing the cyclic stress on the unstable subgrade by approximately 20%, reducing risk of renewed movement while the emergency investigation is underway. (4) We specify a CSXT Roadmaster re-inspection every 12 hours until emergency repairs are in place.

We communicate this recommendation verbally to the CSXT Division Engineer during the site visit and follow up with a written email to the CSXT Division Engineer and Roadmaster within 2 hours of leaving the site, citing the FRA 49 CFR Part 213 surface deviation criteria and our AREMA MRE Chapter 1 slope stability assessment as the technical basis.

Q5. Amtrak asks your firm to prepare a preliminary geotechnical report for a section of the NEC between Baltimore and Philadelphia where recurring track geometry deviations have been observed in the Amtrak track geometry car data for three consecutive measurement runs. The track is designated Class 7 (125 mph passenger operations). You find organic clay at 8 to 18 ft depth in your borings with natural moisture content w_n = 78% and liquid limit LL = 82%. What Amtrak Engineering Standards criteria govern your settlement analysis, and what preliminary finding must you communicate to Amtrak's project manager before the formal report is issued?

A: The governing Amtrak Engineering Standards criteria for this analysis are: Amtrak Engineering Standards — Track Subgrade and Earthwork for subgrade performance criteria; AREMA MRE Chapter 5 and 49 CFR Part 213 Subpart G for Class 7 track geometry tolerances (cross-level limit ½ in., surface runoff limit per Amtrak ES — typically more stringent than FRA minimum for NEC operations); and Amtrak ES Bridge and Structures standards for any settlement analysis at bridge approach locations within the affected zone.

The organic clay condition (w_n/LL = 78/82 = 0.95 — natural moisture nearly at the liquid limit) indicates a soil at or near the liquid state with essentially zero effective stress margin. This material is under active consolidation and is the almost certain cause of the recurring track geometry deviations in the Amtrak geometry car data.

Preliminary finding to communicate to the Amtrak project manager before the formal report: The preliminary finding is that the track geometry deviations are caused by ongoing primary consolidation settlement of a normally consolidated or lightly underconsolidated organic clay deposit at 8 to 18 ft depth. The settlement is ongoing — not a historical, completed event. Without intervention, the settlement will continue and the geometry deviations will worsen. For Class 7 NEC operations with a cross-level tolerance of ½ in., the expected differential settlement rate — even if only 0.1 to 0.2 in. per year — will require more frequent maintenance surfacing than is sustainable for high-speed passenger operations on the NEC. We communicate this finding in a preliminary technical memorandum within 48 hours of receiving the first laboratory test results, recommend that Amtrak Engineering evaluate whether the current maintenance cycle is sustainable while geotechnical remediation options are evaluated, and request authorization to expand our investigation scope to include ground improvement feasibility assessment.

Chapter 5 — Geotechnical Investigation Planning and Scope

Primary Source: USACE EM 1110-1-1804, Geotechnical Investigations, 1 January 2001; AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering (MRE), Chapter 1 — Roadway and Ballast; client-specific railroad engineering standards as cited.

Field case studies by Burt G. Look, from Earthworks: Theory to Practice – Design and Construction (CRC Press/Balkema, 2023), chosen for this chapter’s topics. Each is summarized from the book with its key figures and a closing note on railroad application added by the authors of this manual. Credit for the case material belongs to Look; see item S12 under Supplemental Sources.

Case Study 5.14.1 — No investigation: “the site across the road is the same”

Case study · Look (2023) §2.5

Related section: 5.1 Background — Why Planning is a Billable Deliverable

In this 1988 case a developer sold apartments “off the plan” on one site founded on high-level weathered rock (shallow footings, 4,200 psf allowable bearing). When a second lot of similar size came up across the road, less than 66 ft away, the developer duplicated the project and skipped a site investigation, citing “experience” from next door.

The second site sat over a buried alluvial channel. A backhoe test pit to 10 ft, then borings to 20 ft and 49 ft, showed rock dropping to about 39 ft with compressible alluvium above. Shallow foundations were no longer viable and piles were required. The added cost cancelled the project about three weeks after start, and every purchaser’s deposit was returned.

For railroad work: the same assumption appears when a siding, second main or bridge replacement is designed from borings taken for the adjacent structure. Ground can change completely within a few track lengths, especially where a line crosses a filled valley or old stream course. The cost of the investigation is small next to the cost of finding this out during construction.

Source: Look, B. G. (2023). Earthworks: Theory to Practice – Design and Construction. CRC Press/Balkema. Case study §2.5, pp. 66–68. Summarized and paraphrased; figures reproduced for internal reference. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Case Study 5.14.2 — A buried creek the ground model missed: deep basement dewatering

Case study · Look (2023) §1.7

Related section: 5.2 Desktop Review — The Essential First Step

A deep basement was designed from a seepage model built on in-situ permeability tests, particle-size estimates and a sensitivity check of upper-95% flow rates. Access limits put every boring and CPT outside the building footprint, so the model was effectively two-dimensional. Extraction wells in the middle of the site then pumped far more water than predicted, while flows at the corners stayed manageable. Undersized pumps cost construction time, because a pump of the right capacity is seldom an off-the-shelf item.

Wall type, toe level and an underlying gravel layer were all examined and none explained the flows. Forensic data-gathering did: historical records showed a creek crossing the middle of the site 150 years earlier, infilled in the late nineteenth century and left undeveloped for another 50 years. That paleochannel, filled with loose sand, was the governing feature. Additional borings in detailed design had hinted at local loose sand, but the preliminary parameters were carried forward with only “minor” adjustments.

Look’s lesson is that each model (geological, geotechnical, analytical, design, construction) inherits the errors of the one before it, and the construction model is two steps removed from the analysis. The geological model has to envelop the others.

For railroad work: old valuation maps, historical aerials and early topographic sheets belong in the desktop review for the same reason. Filled creeks, ponds and borrow pits under an embankment or a new structure are the features a two-dimensional boring line along the track will not find.

Source: Look, B. G. (2023). Earthworks: Theory to Practice – Design and Construction. CRC Press/Balkema. Case study §1.7, pp. 28–30. Summarized and paraphrased; figures reproduced for internal reference. Full reference under Supplemental Sources.

Authors: Daniel P. Colwell and Mario Ruel. This chapter was written and compiled by Daniel P. Colwell and Mario Ruel for Railway Ground Hazard Risk Management.

Technical content is drawn from the published sources below, and credit for that material belongs to their authors and publishers. Tables, equations and figures taken from a specific source are also cited where they appear.

Primary sources

• USACE EM 1110-1-1804, Geotechnical Investigations (2001)
• AREMA MRE Chapter 1 — Roadway and Ballast
• Client railroad engineering standards as cited in the text (CSXT, NSR, UPRR, BNSF, CPKC, CN, Amtrak, G&W)

Supplemental sources (LEVI Library)

• CSX Transportation (2018). Design and Construction Standard Specifications — Pipeline Occupancies. Office of VP–Engineering, Jacksonville, FL (rev. June 5, 2018)
• Norfolk Southern Corporation. Guidelines for Under Track Culverts
• Ruel, M. and KRK (2003). General Requirements for Geotechnical Investigations for Canadian National Bridge Construction Projects and “A Practical Approach to Lateral Loading on Piles for Railroad Bridge Design on CN Rail Projects.” CN Rail
• Look, B. G. (2007). Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables. Taylor & Francis
• Repetto, P. C. (2003). “Geo-Environment,” Ch. 26 in The Civil Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed. CRC Press
• Clevenger, A. P. and Huijser, M. P. (2011). Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook: Design and Evaluation in North America. FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003
• Miesner, T. O. and Leffler, W. L. (2006). Oil and Gas Pipelines in Nontechnical Language. PennWell
• Look, B. G. (2023). Earthworks: Theory to Practice – Design and Construction. CRC Press/Balkema. Case studies §1.7, §2.5

File locations for these documents are listed under Supplemental Sources — LEVI Library.

Project management sources

• Miller, D. P. (2009). Building a Project Work Breakdown Structure: Visualizing Objectives, Deliverables, Activities, and Schedules. ESI International Project Management Series. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group)
• Oberlender, G. D. (2000). Project Management for Engineering and Construction, 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill
• Cretu, O., Stewart, R. and Berends, T. (2011). Risk Management for Design and Construction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
• Levy, S. M. (2010). Construction Process Planning and Management: An Owner’s Guide to Successful Projects. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier)
• Seeley, I. H. (1993). Civil Engineering Quantities, 5th ed. Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press
• Hutchings, J. F. (2004). Project Scheduling Handbook. Civil and Environmental Engineering Series, Vol. 15. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
• Chartered Institute of Building (2014). Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development, 5th ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
• American Society of Civil Engineers (2012). Quality in the Constructed Project: A Guide for Owners, Designers, and Constructors, 3rd ed. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 73. Reston, VA: ASCE
• Skill Right (2013). Project Management Tools and Techniques: An Introductory Course in Project Management Foundations [training slides sponsored by Texas Instruments, Inc.; minor modifications by N. Santiago, Spring 2013 version]
• Kelly, J., Male, S. and Graham, D. (2004). Value Management of Construction Projects. Oxford: Blackwell Science
• Rad, P. F. (2002). Project Estimating and Cost Management. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts