Can someone explain the 'why' for Washington state's structural engineering licensure rules? 1

[Charred]

We have a few projects coming up that are in Washington state which none of our engineers currently hold a license in. I am the only one in our firm that has taken and passed the NCEES 16 hour SE exam, but not an 8 hour PE Exam. My colleagues have taken the 8 hour PE Exam. Based on Washington's rules, I cannot even hold a license but my colleagues can with limited design - i.e.: they can design buildings that are risk category II or less which is most buildings. We do have a few buildings that will be risk category III so it looks like we are going to have to turn these down.

I'm having a hard time finding a justification for these requirements and just looking for an explanation so I can better understand the 'why' behind the law? The 16 hour SE Exam should override the PE Exam as it pertains to structural - I would have thought. Why the requirement for both? The FAQ on their website states they treat the SE as an endorsement to the PE license.

Below are the requirements for structural licensure in the state copied from their website:

To get your structural engineer license, you must meet all of the following requirements:
[ul]
[li]Be currently licensed as a Washington Professional Engineer (PE).[/li]
[/ul]

[ul]
[li]Have at least 2 years of progressive structural experience (in addition to the 8 years required for a Professional Engineer license).[/li]
[/ul]

[ul]
[li]Pass the NCEES 16-hour Structural exam (first administered in April 2011). The NCEES SE I and SE II exams (taken prior to April 2011) do not meet the requirements for a structural license in Washington, unless you have also taken and passed a state specific SEIII examination. Please contact us if you've taken a state-specific structural exam.[/li]
[/ul]

If you've only passed the NCEES 16-hour lateral & vertical structural examination, you need to take and pass an additional 8-hour NCEES PE exam in another branch of engineering to get your PE license in Washington.

 

[dik]

...maybe because 'non-engineers' are running the show?

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[3DDave]

It's more typical that there are engineers who are protecting their turf. Recall in the neighboring Oregon, the professional engineers tried to get a guy criminally charged for mentioning his engineering degree as part of a letter explaining that the yellow-light time was such that there was an interval where a car could neither stop nor clear the intersection before the light changed to red. They sued on the grounds that he wasn't a PE in Oregon and therefore could not make calculations about infrastructure. He "won," but I'm not sure his legal costs were repaid.

 

[phamENG]

I would contend that neither dik's nor 3DDave's is the real reason (though the regulatory bogeyman is a popular whipping boy).

When I was planning my exam, I knew I was interested in pursuing work across the country and so I chose to take the 8 hour PE largely because of this rule. Still haven't gotten around to the 16 hour exam, but I may yet...eventually.

The 8-hour Civil/Structural exam (whether or not they would consider the Civil/Structural "another branch of engineering" I don't know) had a good bit more than just structural, but nearly all of it was still quite useful/applicable. I think the only thing that wasn't had to do with laying out horizontal curves, but then somebody in bridge design could probably use that. The rest of it was mostly cost estimating, construction, and some hydraulics (again, mostly useful for bridge engineers but also helpful for pipe stress analysis, flood design, etc.). From what I've heard from colleagues who have taken the 16 hour exam, no such questions are present. So I see the reasoning as being twofold:

1) Test aspiring engineers on some of the more generic aspects of civil engineering that are no less applicable or useful to a well rounded structural engineer that are not present on the SE exam.

2) Create a rigid development structure that enforces the timing of testing relative to career development, not just regurgitation of information memorized in school/study sessions. I've only found these rules in states where structures are actually exposed to real seismic loading on a quasi-regular basis. In other words, places where it really matters. I could phone in all of my lateral designs, and the odds of any of these structures seeing anything close to a real lateral load during their design life is very small. Not so much for engineers designing hospitals (or even houses) on the west coast.

 

[Charred]

phamENG, I kind of understand what you're saying but I'm not sure I can completely agree with it. Our location is close to the New Madrid fault line and 95% of our designs are high seismic - SDC D&E. We do a good bit of design in low seismic areas and coastal areas around the gulf but the vast majority is in high seismic regions. I know that the west coast is a more active seismic region than ours, but this doesn't change the design requirements.

Keep in mind, my goal here is not to argue with you, or Washington's laws. Just trying to understand this so I can better communicate why we cannot design certain buildings in this state. Especially since we design these same structures in other very high seismic regions for these same clients.

 

[dik]

I've encountered too many of 'those guys' that should never have become engineers and am almost certain that it's the only job they could find.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

Charred - consider the impact. The New Madrid fault affects...St. Louis and Memphis? Obviously more than that, but in terms of significant impact to major population centers, that's about it, right? Whereas the regulations for the west coast impact a whole lot more people.

There is a political angle, too. Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi...I don't envy the person who attempts to enact any sort of regulation in that area (even if it's the best idea in the world). Whereas the West Coast is generally more amenable to such things.

 

[sandman21]

Best to contact the board directly as they will know the laws better than most here. It appears that you need to be a PE before you can become an SE. So you will need to pass an exam.

From FAQ:

"I have only passed the NCEES 16-hour lateral & vertical structural examination. Can I apply to Washington State as a PE based on passing only this exam?"
No. Since you are required to be licensed as a Professional Engineer in Washington prior to becoming licensed in structural, you need to have taken and passed an additional 8-hour NCEES PE exam in another branch of engineering. We cannot use the 16-hour SE exam in place of an 8-hour NCEES PE exam.

I know that the west coast is a more active seismic region than ours, but this doesn't change the design requirements.

Enforcement of requirements is vastly different than the two regions.

 

[KootK]

With regard to the "why", I feel that it's nothing more than the slow turning of a big ship. Washington was one of the original states to have a serious SE requirement and, prior to the development of the 16 HR exam, they were the only one other than California administering a meaningful seismic exam. I would know as I failed Washington's SEIII twice before finally slipping though.

Along with the fairly rigorous seismic exam, Washington also provided the "PE Out" that allowed Civil engineers to design modest structures. That was, and still is, a pretty reasonable thing to do in my opinion. From Washington's perspective, I'm sure that they feel that they have developed a reasonable system that has been working for them for a while. So there's likely little impetus to change, at least not quickly.

For a good long time, the world has considered structural engineering to be a subset of civil engineering and little more. As that changes, I suspect that all jurisdictions will come to feel as you do: that a qualified structural engineer is more qualified to design buildings than a qualified civil engineer.

When I applied for my Oregon SE, they approved me conditionally but made me go back and write the Civil PE even though I already had the 8 HR Civil - Structural PE. And then, during the six months that it took me to get that squared away, they went and changed the rules such that I no longer qualified for the Oregon SE without doing a bunch of extra, non-NCEES reference getting for my experience with tall buildings. Now that hurt. I still don't have my Oregon SE.

SE licensing currently requires a considerable, Zen like acceptance of the world as it is I'm afraid. It's a bit like how, whenever my dog and I pull up to a dog park in my car, he barks to get out at max volume into my ear from the back seat. You know, as though there were even one time in the past where I drove him up to a dog park but didn't let him out to play in it. I actually have a ruptured right ear drum from this. But, still, I go limp and carry on, going to the dog park every evening. And so it is with the pursuit of SE licenses.

 

[RWW0002]

I have heard the "breadth vs depth" testing argument similar to what is stating above before, but it should be noted that in many of the same states that you are referencing, a licensed architect with no engineering testing can legally stamp/seal many basic structures. I still have a hard time accepting the "Ohh, I see you have passed a test and met experience requirements that we require for our most rigorous structures, sounds good, ohh but wait, you never did pass this test intended for our most basic structures, sorry, you haven't met our requirements.." logic while a licensed architect or an engineer licensed in any other discipline, yet somewhat trained in building design, can legally stamp these small buildings..


My take on the issue has more to do with the development of the testing in the area of the country where "extra" testing first became standard. For many states it went something like this.

1. PE only with potentially state-specific additional testing for important or complicated structures
2. NCEES 8 hr STR 1 (SE1), which can count as your PE, then 8 hour STR2 (SE2) which allows you to receive SE.
3. 16 HR NCEES Testing combined SE 1 and SE2. Recognizing that this new 16 hour test also includes the testing previously required for PE (SE1) would require rethinking or rewriting the current rules that require an 8-hour test to receive PE, so they just omitted the "SE1 can count as PE testing" part.

While it has become apparent lately that many states are requiring the 8 hr testing and PE prior to SE, it was not super apparent that this was going to be the case when the 16 hour test first came out. I know many engineers that decided to sit for the 16 hour test immediately, bypassing the 8-hour PE testing, since they knew that they would have to take it at some point. Many SE states still allow SE license without PE testing, and many non SE states accept the 16 hour test for their PE requirements.

I really think this should be looked at closely by boards. It is one of those situations where the accepted rules and laws really do not make much sense. In some states it is not as much the laws or rules but the committee's interpretation of said rules.. its a mess for sure.

 

[WARose]

It's what happens when Democrats run a state?

But in all seriousness....these are high seismic areas and I've always thought this is just something that just migrated north from California. Events like the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, Northridge, and the Loma Prieta earthquake changed building codes forever. We are still feeling the fallout.

It's no coincidence that the first state (IIRC) east of the Mississippi to become a SE state also has some rough seismic loads as well.

But the thing that gets me in all this is: if they are that worried....why make this rocket science and rely on all these tricky damage mechanisms? (It's almost like a make-work approach.) Just go elastic and end the worry. In many cases, it's not as expensive as people think.

 

[KootK]

But the thing that gets me in all this is: if they are that worried....why make this rocket science and rely on all these tricky damage mechanisms? (It's almost like a make-work approach.) Just go elastic and end the worry. In many cases, it's not as expensive as people think.

In my opinion, an elastic ELF design is a pretty poor seismic design from a reliability perspective. Compared to a design with embodied ductility, it is nowhere as forgiving with respect to the magnitude of displacement that may wind up being imposed on the structure. If feel that, if an elastic-ish response is desired, that is best accomplished by way of performance based design.

Post disaster buildings in some jurisdictions must be designed with ductile failure mechanisms. I believe that this is the reason why.

 

[chris3eb]

I agree that the end result is kind of nonsensical, but that's the way it has to be. Washington has decided that you need to pass the 8 hour PE and the 16 hour SE to have an SE license in their state. Some states only require the 16 hour SE. Those are two different systems and don't think anyone would have too much of a problem with either of those systems.

But once a state decides to go with the more conservative PE to SE system, there isn't a great solution to accommodate people from the "straight to SE" systems - either they stand firm that a PE is required, or out of state engineers have an advantage (and maybe some in-state engineers try to go for an out of state license first to try to skip a test).

 

[WARose]

In my opinion, an elastic ELF design is a pretty poor seismic design from a reliability perspective.

It shouldn't be. (Assuming we are talking about designing to the right event.) In any case, just about every one of the big ones that happen....afterwards the codes have to be tweaked (i.e. anchorage for walls out of plane, where/when overstrength applies, etc). Seems to me a lot of this could be avoided in the first place. (But I'll get off my soapbox for now.)

 

[KootK]

It shouldn't be.

What makes you say that? I believe that elastic ELF is a poor strategy for high seismic because:

1) When we select an R-Value for high ductility, it can generally be expected that we get quite a bit more ductility than the R-value would suggest. This enhances reliability.

2) When you go elastic ELF, you have very little reserve ductility because you've not detailed for it. This impairs reliability.

Assuming we are talking about designing to the right event.

That, right there, is the rub. Using code based ELF, it's almost a certainty that you've not designed for the "right" event. The more ductile your system is, the better able it will be to absorb that inaccuracy. With elastic ELF, you're basically hoping that you've nailed the event. And that's not a realistic expectation in my opinion.

Obviously, if you ELF design for "elastic" forces AND detail for ductility, that's usually fine.

 

[WARose]

2) When you go elastic ELF, you have very little reserve ductility because you've not detailed for it. This impairs reliability.

And when you wind up getting damage anyway? (Including collapses.) I mean, yeah: I get your point. I'm just not a fan of the approach.

That, right there, is the rub. Using code based ELF, it's almost a certainty that you've not designed for the "right" event. The more ductile your system is, the better able it will be to absorb that inaccuracy.

We aren't designing for the "right" event anyway. May as well have it undamaged after it happens.

 

[KootK]

And when you wind up getting damage anyway? (Including collapses.) I mean, yeah: I get your point. I'm just not a fan of the approach.

Sure, as I understand it, NZ is currently having similar thoughts regarding the ductility approach. Not dying is pretty great but, on the other hand, having your city's building stock rendered uninhabitable for a decade kind of sucks too. That said, it very much sounds like you mean to be an advocate of low ductility demand, performance based design rather than elastic ELF design.

We aren't designing for the "right" event anyway. May as well have it undamaged after it happens.

I disagree:

1) With a ductile system, you'll design to the "wrong" event and likely have a system that has not collapsed when all is said and done. This is pretty much the crux of current, code based, capacity based seismic design.

2) With an elastic ELF system, you'll design to the wrong event and the consequences of that wrongness may well be brittle collapse. Boo I say.

 

[WARose]

Sure, as I understand it, NZ is currently having similar thoughts regarding the ductility approach. Not dying is pretty great but, on the other hand, having your city's building stock rendered uninhabitable for a decade kind of sucks too.

Bravo to them. I was in on a building rehab following a quake some years back. When we got done fixing everything....it was about as much as a new building. Factor in the original costs....and you are close to 200%. I did a (off the record) estimate and I came out with: money could have been saved by doing it right the first time. (And that's not even considering the logistical costs of business being down and so on.) That's what got the ball rolling with me on this.

2) With an elastic ELF system, you'll design to the wrong event and the consequences of that wrongness may well be brittle collapse. Boo I say.

Not with the kind events I have in mind. And also with what I have in mind, ductility isn't completely out the window either.

But all that is neither here nor there with this thread and I think we ought to get off this tangent.

 

[KootK]

But all that is neither here nor there with this thread and I think we ought to get off this tangent.

Meh, many of our best conversations here take place under the auspices of largely unrelated thread titles. And I think that OP has likely already received about as much "answer" as he's likely to get on this particular topic.

This is actually an issue that I've been meaning to start hammering on for a while now. Several times each year I see the [R = 1 = Good Seismic Design] misunderstanding crop up. And I'd like to see that straightened out. It seems to stem from a misconception that ELF is about design for forces when, in reality, it is about design for displacements. R=1 implies high forces but, unfortunately, often low displacement capacity.

Not with the kind events I have in mind.

Do tell: what kind of events are those?

And also with what I have in mind, ductility isn't completely out the window either.

Great. That's sort of consistent with my comment below. At the same time, I think that we need to take care to mention the "special events" and the inclusion of ductile detailing when we recommend elastic elf design. Otherwise, we'll create the impression that elastic ELF seismic design is a robust seismic design strategy when, in my opinion, it is not.

Obviously, if you ELF design for "elastic" forces AND detail for ductility, that's usually fine.

 

[Lomarandil]

Meh, many of our best conversations here take place under the auspices of largely unrelated thread titles

This does make it a nightmare for finding an old memory of a thread a few years down the line... just to put my two cents in from the popcorn gallery

----
just call me Lo.