Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

2017 PE Exam using old CERM

Status
Not open for further replies.

Structurecrg

Structural
Mar 28, 2015
7
I would like to get some opinions on this.. I am taking the Civil-Structural PE exam in April, and have been studying the breadth (AM) exam questions using the CERM 8th Edition (published in 2001).. I thought I could squeak by using this old version that I had on hand, but I am considering upgrading to the latest edition. Does anyone else who is taking the exam soon (or has taken it recently) have an opinion on this? Do you think the CERM has changed enough to the point where I would need to upgrade?

FWIW, all of my other references are up to date, but I know that the CERM will be my bible for the morning exam. TIA
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

I would say using one that is a couple years old is not bad, using one from 2001, might be pushing it. Any of the CERM's published after 2012 should be good for this PE exam. You should be able to get one online for a decent price.
 
As long as you're aware of code-dependent questions and have the current codes for those, it's doable. Much of what CERM covers is conceptual, and those haven't changed much.

But, as Stenbrook says, you can probably pick up an older edition for some cheap insurance.

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.
 
I took civil/structural PE last fall with a 2008 CERM. No problem. I even got by without my AISC manual but I don't recommend that as it definitely cost me a few points. My perspective is probably a bit skewed by my being structural in real life but my impression was that most of the non-structural stuff was quite independent of codes and, therefore, code updates. Perhaps the breadth portion is intended to be that way. Cuts and fills, hydraulic heads, cost benefit analyses... all that was first principles stuff. So yeah, as long as you've got good structural references for the structural depth portion, I say go for it.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor