PE Civl Exam - Canadian Structural Engineer 1

[CaseyDaniel]

Hi,

I am an structural engineer from Canada and will be taking the April 2008 Civil PE exam for the state of Washington.

Right now I am trying to determine which afternoon depth exam I should focus my attention on. Although, I primarily practise structural engineering, I am only really familiar with the Canadian steel codes (obviously), so I would like to know if it would be somewhat easy for me to take study for the Structural PM Depth exam and learn the AISC and ACI codes, or would I be better off focusing on one of the other topics.

I have a small grasp on all the other topics (except the new Construction format) so for now it would be safe to assume that I will be starting at the same starting point for all of them.

Now, for those that would suggestion I shy away from the structural exam, which of the other exams would you take knowing that you would be having to learn some new stuff and why?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Regards,


Casey

 

[sundale]

If you are a structural engineer and "primarily practise (sic) structural engineering", then I would respectfully suggest that you consider the ethics of what you are asking here.

Namely, it appears that you are asking what is the easiest afternoon depth exam (any subdiscipline) that you could take to obtain a WA PE, Civil license in order to (presumably) practice structural engineering in that state.

 

[HgTX]

It happens. I took the PE along with a bunch of other "primarily structural" civil engineers I knew. Most of us did not take the structural afternoon portion because we'd been warned against it (by PEs and by PhDs), and our state does not require it specifically.

In my own personal situation, what I do on a daily basis isn't covered by *any* of the afternoon portions (though structural would be the closest), so the test that I did take wasn't all that much less relevant than a bunch of design problems that I never ever do day to day. I'm ethically comfortable. If I need to redo it sometime for licensure in another state, I'll take some prep courses, suck it up, and do it.

I'm sure I've ranted about this before, but I think it's been a while and I'm due for another...the level of knowledge required for the structural unit is on a completely different level than that required for the other four. The other four can be done, and done well, with two undergrad classes and a reference book (which is why I believe the experience record portion of the PE application should be taken much more seriously than the exam portion).

The structural unit, on the other hand, is in a whole different realm. It's as if the people writing those questions hadn't gotten the same memo as the people writing the other questions. It had been several years since I'd worked problems like that, but dammit I had a master's degree in structural engineering and had good grades, and I was NOT expecting to be having as much trouble as I was running into. I decided just a couple of days before the exam (after advice from two PEs to do so) to switch to another area, and whaddaya know I got the highest score in the state among everyone taking the PE exam in all disciplines that day. That was very disillusioning. To me, that exam is a hoop to jump through and no more. If I can get a very high score after 3 days of review in a field that I don't even practice, even allowing for my apparently godlike test-taking skills, what does that exam even mean? How much worth should I attach to the licenses of PEs working in that field?

The answer to the difference in difficulty is not "Well, the structural questions are harder because it's a much more failure-sensitive field." WRONG--that's what the SE exam is for. If you want to make sure your structural engineers have been tested to a higher standard than other civils, then license them separately. Don't just make one unit, chosen freely among others and not reflected in any way on either the license or in the score reports (or anywhere else that I know of), different from the others.

But I digress. Back to the original question. IF (and only if) your personal sense of ethics (along with the laws of the state you plan to be licensed in) will let you take a different field, you should be okay with geotech, hydraulics, or environmental if you had a class or two, do the reviews, and bring your textbook (as well as the big Lindeburgh reference book). Transportation is also not hard but requires code books that you may not have access to and are probably unfamiliar with (like the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices).

You should look get the NCEES practice book and look at all five sections, and get your own sense about what you think is doable--one of my co-workers, no dummy he, had specialized as a student in the same field that I took the test in, and he failed it when he took it (different year). If you are comfortable with the structural portion, great--it'll be of use to you for licensure in states that require it, either on its own or as a prerequisite for the SE.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[CaseyDaniel]

Thank you for your "thoughtful" reply and broad assumptions.

First of all, I am writing the Civil PE exam, not the Washington state Strucutal I or II PE exams (exams I intend to take at a later date). And with writing the Civil PE exam, NCEES provides 5 different afternoon depth exams that I may choose at my discretion. Nowhere do they state that if I intend to practise geotechnical engineering (for an example) that I must write the geotechnical depth exam. Would it be advantageous to me to write the geotech exam if I normally practise geotech? Yes.

But in the end it is my choice, whether or not you agree is of no concern, as I am sure Washington state is aware that some people may choose to write a different depth exam than what they normally practise. And since they have not stated anywhere that if I plan to practise structural engineering I must write the structural depth exam of the Civil PE exam; therefore, I think it would be safe to assume that they are fine with the ethics involved.

Back to my situation...

My sole reason for writing the exam is to write the exam. I have no immediate plans to practise engineering in the States, but the only way to write the exam is to apply for a PE and I chose WA as they do issue a Structural PE license, and it is compatible with APEGBC Struct. Eng. designation, which I intend to get down the road. And Montana, apparently, won't let me apply for a PE if I don't have a SSN.

Currently, I am at a disadvantage in writing the structual depth exam as I am not familiar with the AISC, ACI, and other American structural codes (UBC, IBC, etc) and am only familiar with the Canadian variants. When the time comes to write the Structual I and II exams, I hope to be more familiar with this codes.

I thought I asked an honest question (similar to other questions I have seen in this forum) and didn't think I would have to provide my whole story as to why I am writing the Civil PE exam. But you have it now.

Anyway, thank you for bringing to my attention the ethics involved in my decision, I will do some honest soul searching and make a decision later on as to which exam I write.



Now, would anyone else be kind enough to provide me with some advice?

Thanks,

Casey

p.s.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/practice.html

 

[CaseyDaniel]

Hg,


Thank you for your insightful reply to my question. You got your reply in while I was replying to Sundale.

I will take your suggestion and go through my old university notes and text books and take a look at the CERM to see which of the other topics come more easily to me.


And I believe my ethics in this situation are in accordance with WA state.

Thanks again,


Casey

 

[HgTX]

"Montana, apparently, won't let me apply for a PE if I don't have a SSN"

You need to contact their PE board and ask about alternative identifiers. They're not really supposed to be using SSNs as identifiers anyway, for transactions that will have nothing to do with your Social Security or tax status.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[CaseyDaniel]

I think I ran into a secretary that was having a bad day when I asked that question...

She was adamant that I needed an SSN, even when I asked her how would engineers from other countries obtain a PE without an SSN.

But at the end of the day, I think I am better off going through Washington due to their relationship with BC's engineering association (APEGBC).

Thanks,

Casey

 

[civilperson]

Invent a 9 figure identifier for the secretary, (write it down and save for future use, imitation SSN).

 

[AlmostPE]

You can get SSN even if you are not a citizen. But, I dont know whether you must have SSN or not.

Back to topic, I really think you need to take the Structural afternoon. I just found out that I passed it! If I can pass it, I am sure you can because to be honest, I dont think I know much. You need to take the practice exam though. Make sure you know where to look in the book (especially for morning session). You also need to make sure you know how to calculate deflection with different methods (beef up your structural analysis again) because sometime one method will take you only a minute to solve. I feel that there was very little question involving code.

 

[Qshake]

The state of washington requires an SE to design structures of meeting certain criteria, so I wouldn't be to concerned with how you pass the PE exam. I have two distinct though maybe not mutually exclusive opinions on this matter.

A. You are a practicing structural engineering and part of your job now and in the future requires you to learn the codes of various locations where your structures are to be built. Hence you should have a good idea of what you need from the code, it's a matter of finding it now matter what the title of the document or it's origin. Heck in some cases, you'll be responsible for finding out information that is no longer in effect but was used to design a structure you're rehabbing. You need to know what was done then too. It's likely you don't know that and will have to read the old code (if available). That's what we do, we read and apply. It's not a matter of having ALL information memorized before taking an exam or practicing; that is not the intent of the requirement as I see it.

B. More the latter part above, I don't think it a stretch to take other parts of the PE exam instead of what may appear to be more time consuming. The exam is at best able to test your fundamental skills and breadth of knowledge not depth of knowledge. Again, for more critical structures passing scores on the SE II and III are required in addition to the SE I (PE). So, in the end, if you're going to design critical structures in Washington you'll have to test your structural knowledge one way or the other.

Good Luck

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[AKRAMCRANE]

Do you any CD or online courses that i can buy to pass the PE exam /Structural/Civil

 

[HgTX]

ppi2pass is good for morning session, but not useful for the afternoon structural session.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[csd72]

There are many of them around, just google it!

 

[ShaggyPE]

I recently passed the Mechanical PE. During my studies I found the website

http://www.engineerboards.com

very helpful. You may be able to find answers to some of your questions amongst the posters there.

Good Luck.

-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Certified SolidWorks Professional