Against a Separate Structural Engineering License in Florida or Anywhere Else 15

[gendna2]

Hello all,

I would like to bring your attention a move by the Florida Structural Engineer's Association to make a separate Structural Engineer license (SE) from the current Professional Engineer (PE) license that a civil engineer now must have to design structures. Here is a link to the Structure magazine where you can read more on page 21.

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/a4d69279#/a4d69279/20

I disagree with this move by the FSEA because it is part of a pattern to push more regulation onto businesses in the name of “safety.” Currently, a PE has an 8 hour exam, on top of another 8 hour fundamentals of engineering exam, on top of 4 years of experience. A PE is required to only practice in areas where he is competent, just because you have a PE license doesn’t mean you design structures if your knowledge is in waste water. An SE license is a 16 hour exam, and most SEs will take that on top of their PE license. Where does it end?

I think the truth is that structural engineers pushing for this are looking at their bottom line. To me, this nation wide push for a 16 hour exam, in the nation where the Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State Building, and Hoover Dam were designed without such an onerous requirement, is guildism. Not only that, but it sets a bad precedent. Pretty soon, we’ll see a push for a separate geotechnical license, after all, foundations are important too and people can die if they fail; a separate license for mechanical engineers designing hospital HVAC, after all, people can get really sick when the HVAC is malfunctioning and they can die.


While we're at it, let's just dismember civil engineering as profession and have a separate license for all our niches. As long as we can have the word "death", "catastrophe", or any fear words, I'm sure we'll have a license for it.

Finally, for all the talk of STEM education in our society, how do we promote civil engineering to young people by saying “well, you see, you take an 8 hour exam, then wait 4 years, then another 8 hour exam…but that’s not enough see, you need to then take another 16 hour exam…oh, and you have to fill out lots of paperwork and documentation too.”

If you want to end the madness, find a Florida legislator and let them know your thoughts.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/#Senators

I doubt the FSEA or the "experts" are going to change their minds; they've made them up a long time ago and are pushing this on all 4 cylinders because it'll mean more money for a few at the expense of the many. Make sure you mention that businesses and governments will incur greater costs overpaying overqualified engineers and that will kill jobs.

Don't believe me, just look at the "great" state of Illinois, one of the most business unfriendly states, where, (suprise, suprise), you cannot even design a 3 story building, 20 foot bridge, any structure without an SE license. Manufacturers in Illinois felt too warm and fuzzy about the safety of their structures, so they've been moving them across the border to Indiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin...any place but the land of Lincoln.

 

[msquared48]

Well, I cannot say that I agree with you here, but maybe I am prejudiced, too, as I walked that road 35 years ago.

The $$$ argument does not fly here as the door swings both ways. You stand to lose money if you are currently doing work that would require a structural license under the new guidelines. I would assume that that is your personal motivation for starting this string. No offense intended... Just an observation.

As for what was designed in the past and who did it, well, licensed structural engineer or not, Roebling was one of the greatest "structural" engineers of his time, and still is in my mind, licensed as such or not. That does not preclude changing the licensing rules when the rules become more complicated, or when a specialty area, such as structural engineering, develops.

Personally, I am just waiting for someone to get the idea to have ALL structural engineers mandatorily re-tested every 10 years or so. We already have PDH requirements to maintain your licensure in many states.

If you have been doing structural engineering, and are well versed in all of its facets, you should have no problem passing the test.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[IRstuff]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but the big question was already raised in the OP; "A PE is required to only practice in areas where he is competent" is the requirement, but as I've seen abundantly here, not many engineers really understand what that means, and the fact that "you don't know what you don't know" is pretty commonplace. There was recently a posting from a junior (??) in college who thought that gutting and replacing some structural elements in a house was trivial enough that he could do it himself, and it took MULTIPLE postings from experienced SEs before he was convinced to pass the work onto someone more experienced.

As has been pointed out in numerous threads, the PE exams are a minimum threshold of competency, and with buildings collapsing fairly often these days, there are lots of licensed engineers who aren't competent, even on simple things.

It just seems to me that an extended test is one way to get engineers to recognize how much they know, or don't know. A refresher test wouldn't seem that outrageous to me (I'm not a PE, so yeah...), but doctors, like my wife, are required to renew their board certifications every 5 years, which does entail A truckload of studying, particularly since the questions on the exam seem to be particularly obscure. Given that SEs are likewise responsible for the protection of people, a single, 16-hr exam seems almost too lax.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[hawkaz]

IRstuff- Well said. I have seen some very scary retaining wall designs that were sealed by civil engineers. I have no problem with the 16 hour test (bias opinion since I took it many years ago)- and I wish more states would require continuing education. I am in favor of more states converting to SE requirements. I don't understand the resistance to this. I have been told that the ASCE even agrees with the provisions (at least in Arizona).

Please note that in most states where this has already been done, PEs can still design buildings up to 3 stories. The SE is only required for essential facilities and taller structures- even in California.

Gendna2- by the way, Arizona already does have a separate geotechnical registration, but we have a title act instead of a practice act here- so it is basically meaningless.



See

http://www.seaoa.org/Resources/Documents/Structural Practice Act for AZ.pdf

for the Structural Engineers of Arizona position

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

As someone who is taking the second day of the SE exam Saturday I fully support a separate license. The volume of knowledge when compared to other disciplines is ridiculous. I'd say that studying for the SE exam was key to identifying areas where my structural engineering knowledge was deficient and helping me to learn more about the profession I'm trying to enter.

To me, after studying for this exam and after seeing what people get away with in their "designs", if I was the owner of a new high rise structure I would be very worried if an SE had not designed it.

The exam is tough and really provides a good basis for judging if someone knows how to design a building or not. But, as Mike said, if you're proficient in designing buildings then the 16-hour test shouldn't be that bad, if you're not proficient then you shouldn't be designing structures anyway per the ethics requirements for engineers anyway.

About the only thing I see being wrong is the cost of the exam. At $1000 for both days it can be pretty rough if you miss it the first time around (which statistically most people will do).

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[RobertHale]

I come down with support for this measure. To me it is a simple issue of fairness. In my primary jurisdiction (Georgia) the state mandates that structural engineers have to take the new SE test even though they only recognize PE's. I had no option to softball it with the Civil-Structural PE, but somehow the licenses are the same indistinguishable. If you want the licenses to be the same then pony up a grand for 2 days of testing and make sure you have to work some real problems by hand rather than multiple guess. It might be construed as a form of protectionism, or it could be a recognition of the extreme complexity of the modern codes as it relates to buildings and bridges. Either way I am kinda sick of people looking in from the outside and declaring there is no reason for structural's to be any different. While it seems like protectionism to some, to me the protestations seem like a pissed off girl who didn't get invited to the dance. [\soapbox]
The principle of determining your own competence has never sat well with me. How do you tell you don't know what you don't know, or worse yet how do you tell you don't know what you think you know.

 

[ajh1]

I am drawing close to retirement with a basic PE license so am not pursuing the SE. I would recommend it highly for the young engineer wanting to get ahead in their career. The one downside I see to a full mandatory requirement is short-term. Many of us have effectively limited our professional areas of expertise to a few areas. In my case, structural and cold-formed steel. To suggest I have enough knowledge to pass an SE test without a huge amount of study in all the other areas of structural types would be silly on my part. I do know where I have sufficient expertise and the areas I don't. I haven't done a concrete design in almost 40 years and know enough not to act like I could do it today.
Sometimes it is just the basics. I recall an article in the Colorado Licensing newsletter a few years ago which to paraphrase said, "Hey, guys, you do need to design for lateral forces.", after a rash apparently of strip shopping center designs where the only design loads used were vertical.

 

[cvg]

I can see no reason why structural engineering is any more of a public safety issue than any number of other fields. for instance, as a civil engineer, I can design a dam spillway to safely pass the probable maximum flood without overtopping which could easily cause millions of dollars in damage and lives lost. A geologist (not even an engineer) could monitor the safety of a rock slope in a mine that could bury trucks running a thousand feet below. and a team of civils, mechanicals and electricals could design a water filtration plant which protects the health of the entire city. all require specialized experience, none require a 16 hour test.

 

[msquared48]

There are a whole he££ of a lot more buildings than dams or mines.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

cvg, how many codes do you need to be familiar with to design any of those? One? Two? Four?

Taking the SE I had to be intimately familiar with 11 codes and specifications along with the complex design issues related to the four major building materials (steel, wood, concrete, masonry) along with geotechincal engineering and the challenges of wind and seismic design. In actual practice my boss probably has to be familiar with about 20+ codes and specifications to design buildings both existing and new, and we don't even do high-rise buildings or high seismic.

It's also not just the consequences of failure, it's the difficulty in determining that the structure is safe combined with the consequences of failure (both monetarily and for life safety).

As Mike said, there are a whole lot more buildings than dams or mines. If a lot of mines or dams were deficient would we hear about it in the news? Sure, but it wouldn't be a major disaster. If a lot of buildings were deficient then it often doesn't show up until you get a code level event, and then you get a major disaster like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Lack of research and data for that quake, I know but you hopefully get the point.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[cvg]

you seem to miss the point. to be expected since you do not have any experience designing a dam or working in a mine

 

[woodman88]

Maybe we should have a Steel PE, Concrete PE, Wood PE, Masonry PE seals, as an eight or sixteen hour test could not even offer a true test of just one of these materials.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[theonlynamenottaken]

So the discussion has turned to the reason(s) that the catastrophic risk associated with structural is typically higher than other engineering disciplines? In discussing this ad nauseum with fellow non-structural engineers we've come up with the following:

- many of the loadings are not reliably quantifiable. Seismic, wind, vehicular impact, wave/hydrodynamic, blast, live load, etc are all vaguely modeled mathematically with large variability in actual magnitude and application
- almost no structures are tested or are even practically able to be tested
- most structures aren't continuously monitored, and continuous monitoring is not practical/feasible in most cases
- if a structure fails it will often cause or catalyze the failure of a non-structural engineering work
- when disasters within other disciplines happen they are sometimes contained or protected by structures
- the service life of a structure is often indefinite due to lack of oversight or lack of planned/expected obsolescence
- lesser quality control in the construction of structures, and low reliability in the material characteristics (wood, concrete)
- the higher likelihood of naive modification of the product during its lifetime

Food for thought anyway. I do support separate licensing for structural, but I also readily admit that its a case of addressing the symptom and not the problem. To actually address the problem we need to work on our (USA's) engineering education system, and have a much more robust mechanism on the regulatory end for identifying and disciplining engineers that practice outside of their competency.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

To actually address the problem we need to work on our (USA's) engineering education system, and have a much more robust mechanism on the regulatory end for identifying and disciplining engineers that practice outside of their competency.

Well said and 100% accurate.

you seem to miss the point. to be expected since you do not have any experience designing a dam or working in a mine

Fair enough, but I'm not sure I did miss the point, please clarify if I misunderstood.

You said "I can see no reason why structural engineering is any more of a public safety issue than any number of other fields." My response was that, given the volume of codes required to be familiar with for structural design when compared to other disciplines, structural engineering requires more knowledge (practical and code understanding) than others. While codes (and especially complicated codes) do not alone provide a safe design they do provide a baseline with which to judge our designs and also provide a standard of care with which we can judge other engineers should something go awry. Thus, you could argue that by designing it to meet the applicable codes is the minimum amount of safety required.

Thus, I feel that it is more difficult to provide a design that meets a minimum of safety for a building than many other engineering design disciplines. This, combined with a nearly constant high consequence for failure in building design and a significant quantity of structures being designed improperly leads me to believe that such a license is the most practical solution to such a problem.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[NorthCivil]

Maine EIT,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/photos/mount-polley-mine-spill-an-aerial-view-1.2730436

Example of engineering failure of a dam, at a mine, happened this summer in my backyard. Consequence of failure? look at the environmental devestation. This disaster will drain into the fraser river along which 3 million people live, and is host to one of the greatest salmon runs on the planet.

I don't envy the guys who put their ink on this kind of thing (i practice structural).

 

[cvg]

good one North
just lucky it wasn't a bit closer to a city, could have been much, much worse. dam repairs will easily be in the millions. lost mining revenue in the millions and civil penalties, clean up and legal fees also in the millions. this is probably a 100 million dollar screw up. g

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/St...lley+mine+spill+come+from/10138497/story.html

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Maybe I wasn't clear, I never claimed that dam or mine failures didn't have significant consequences. Quite the opposite, I believe they often have much worse consequences than a structural building failure. My point was that there are a lot more buildings than dams and if you're regularly designing large building structures the volume of knowledge required to practice that discipline is much greater. Thus, a more specialized license like the SE, which is the whole point of this thread.

In short, I'm not saying that the consequences of failure are equal or greater. I'm saying that a larger volume of knowledge is required to design most buildings correctly, and there's many more buildings than dams or mines. You are right that more buildings does not necessarily equal more lives affected if failure occurs but it does mean we have more people designing and stamping buildings and thus there's a greater chance for people to be getting away with doing it wrong.

Plus, I imagine the figure of $100 million dollars is low but if we're throwing examples out look at the CTV building in the 2010 Christchurch earthquake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_Building

The structural engineer was practicing outside of his qualifications and nobody caught it. 115 people died and a 6 story building collapsed. If you assume $1 million per lost life (low) then this was a $115 million disaster in life lost alone, regardless of the cost of rescue, cleanup, and the building's value.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[Gumpmaster]

cvg, I think the primary difference between risk with dams and buildings is that dams typically have a lot more oversight. I've worked on several structures that were critical to dam safety and FERC is pretty stringent as is the Corps. With a building no compenent person outside your company may ever look at the design.

Nobody has yet mentioned the free market (not that we have one) and how that may impact SE practice acts. One way of looking at it is business and government teaming up to keep competitors out of the field. Yes, the SE is rigorous and may keep some incompentent people out of the practice, but the test is actually quite shallow compared to the actual breadth of knowledge that's needed in an SE practice. So, does an SE practice act actually make people safer in a measurable objective way? Can you prove it with numbers or only with an "it makes sense that it would." It's an actual question, not a rhetorical one.

Yes, I've passed the SE exam.

 

[NorthCivil]

Maine EIT,

You have repeatedly said that structurals require greater knowledge than other civils. This is not only incorrect, but very insulting.

-a structural

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

North: I repeatedly said that it requires more knowledge of codes and specifications. But I did say that it requires more "practical [knowledge] and code [knowledge]" earlier and I will stand by this.

While I'm not trying to belittle other disciplines nor say that structural engineers are smarter, I am saying that structural engineering is harder in that it requires you to be more focused in the discipline otherwise you likely can't ethically say you're practicing in your field of competence. Yes, I'm sure many people will be insulted by this but it's my belief and I've attempted to back it up. By all means make a counter-argument as I will easily admit that there's no possible way I could be entirely right nor entirely confident in such a statement.

If anyone should be insulted it's me. I've made a dedicated effort to provide quantifiable proof to back up my statements. Your and cvg's arguments refuting this, with the exception of your post above citing the dam failure, have provided no evidence other than "no, you're wrong!"

As a reasonable quantifiable value I've looked at the NCEES exam requirements for some of the civil PE exams listed on the NCEES website and counted the number of code references I could find:

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING: About the same as structural for obvious reasons, however I would hope we can agree that the depth of knowledge expected is lower.
CIVIL-CONSTRUCTION: 9 codes listed.
CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL: 2 codes listed.
CIVIL-STRUCTURAL: 9 codes listed.
CIVIL-TRANSPORTATION: 11 codes listed. (But 6 of them AASHTO and I think we can agree this is a much more focused discipline than structural)
CIVIL-WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL: No codes listed but quite a wide body of knowledge, I imagine not much depth in many of these though.
INDUSTRIAL: No codes listed but a number of codes and standards referenced in the text.
MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING: No codes listed but about 3 standards referenced in the text.
NUCLEAR: No codes listed. (But I imagine there is many, but I would also think we can agree it's a more focused discipline)

NCEES 16-HOUR STRUCTURAL: 11 codes listed.

If that's not enough then lets look at the pass rates for the PE exams (first time taker and repeat pass rates):

Agricultural (October 2013) 69 50
Architectural 72 17
Chemical 74 25
Civil 70 39
Control Systems (October 2013) 76 53
Electrical and Computer: Computer Engineering 71 0
Electrical and Computer: Electrical and Electronics 73 36
Electrical and Computer: Power 68 43
Environmental 51 28
Fire Protection (October 2013) 69 37
Industrial 69 15
Mechanical 72 40
Metallurgical and Materials (October 2013) 62 0
Mining and Mineral Processing (October 2013) 71 37
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 81 67
Nuclear (October 2013) 54 44
Petroleum (October 2013) 75 53
Software 64 50

Lowest were Nuclear, Environmental around 51-54%.

16 Hour SE pass rates (and these are way up from the last year):
SE Vertical Component 45% 26%
SE Lateral Component 43% 37%

On top of this NCEES and many states felt that 8 hours was not a long enough exam and that's why we had the structural 1 and structural 2 exams which are now the 16 hour structural exam. Some states require local exams on top of the structural exam. Plus the afternoon of both days are essay questions. They felt that multiple choice wasn't sufficient to determine competency.

On top of THAT I took vertical twice before I passed it and can say from experience that you could tell who was either PE civil/structural or SE as we had the most texts. I myself used two suitcases to bring all my books in with other structural exam takers doing similar. PE civil/structural had slightly less as they don't need seismic codes for the exam.

So, if you can come up with another way to quantify body of knowledge required or difficulty of practicing or number of codes required to be familiar with then please share it. Otherwise I stand by my statement that structural engineering of multi-story buildings is one of the broadest and hardest disciplines to become competent in.

And that's why I support a structural license.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.