NCEES Structural Exam

[PJD]

With the advent of the new all-governing intenational code 2000, the following questions have come up:<br>
<br>
1. Has anyone heard if California has any intentions of merging their SEOC structural exam with the NCEES national structual exam? <br>
2. Will California ever allow NCEES structural engineers to get reciprocity in their state?<br>
3. Other than a strong seismic influence, what are the other differences between the California test and the NCEES structural exam? <br>

 

[Imagineer]

The International Code will not override California's requirement for structural engineers. The code is a minimum outline and does not deal with structural details, such as beam connection.<br>
<br>
1) No, and for those of us outside CA, why would we want this? Living in a seismically inactive area, I really don't want to have to study it.<br>
<br>
2) No, and unless the NCEES includes high seismic activity problems, CA probably won't ever. <br>
<br>
3) Californians have bunches of other rules. It is a very regulated state. (sorry for the ambiguity but my experience when working with companies in CA.)

 

[PJD]

Wait until the New Madrid fault slips then you'll all be scrambling to learn seismic design.

 

[daski]

I live in New Jersey, but I got a Calif. Civil eng. PE about 5 years ago by taking their special seismic and surveying tests (2 1/2 hrs. each). They gave me reciprocity for the national PE civil exam that I took several years earlier. 99% of the seismic questions are taken directly from the UBC, and it's open-book. So I don't understand why so many people flunk it.<br>
Don't quote me on the following, but I think it's still true: to get a Calif. Structural PE, you need references from 5 Calif. stuctural PE's. So if you're not working in CA, you may as well forget it. Also, you only need a structural PE to stamp designs of schools, hospitals and high-rise buildings. <br>
A civil PE was ok for designing the low-rise pharmaceutical plants I was doing at the time <p> <br><a href=mailto:markdaski@aol.com>markdaski@aol.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>

 

[USStructuralist]

There has been an update on the position taken by SEAOC who is not urging support of all SEA Chapters through NCSEA to change from a Title Act (Structural Engineering License) to a Practice Act (SE-I and SE-II license) as well as support of the NCEES standardized examinations.

Three documents of interest on this subject have been posted on the Structuralist.Net website at:

http://www.structuralist.net/professional_opinions.htm

(reference &quot;Two Tier Practice Act for Structural Engineers License&quot;, &quot;Proposal-Establishment of the Academy of Structural Engineering - SEAOC Professional Licensing Committee&quot; and &quot;The Case for Licensing for Structural Engineer&quot; by Dr. Gene Corley)

Some very good discussion on the proposals occurs on the Structuralist.Net Professional Discussion forum under the forum &quot;Professional Licensing Issues&quot; located at:

http://www.structuralist.net/cgi-local/UltraBoard/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Category&CID=4

(no line break in the URL address).

Although many of us in California are supporting the proposal, we have definite questions related to the definition of responsiblitiles between the SE-I and II license as well as who will be responsible for governing the qualifications.

You are invited to participate in this important discussion as it affects the rest of the U.S. in terms of committement to NCSEA's stand on the issues. Each state will, it seems, mantain control of additional requirments for licensing above the minimum standards established by the NCEES exam.

Regards,
Dennis S. Wish, PE
The Structuralist Administrator for:

http://www.structuralist.net

AEC-Residential Listservice
admin@structuralist.net
(208) 361-5447 E-Fax