Structural Engineer Certification 7

[lkjh345]

I am interested in members thoughts on the drive by the Structural Engineering Certifcation Board (

http://www.secertboard.org

) to get structural engineers 'certified'.

I am not asking about being liscensed, but being 'Certified'.

The benefits seem vague at best, where as the cost ($450 Application Fee, $100 per year there after) seems a little steep.

The idea has not exactly caught fire in our part of the country (Nebraska), but I am curious if it has in other parts of the country and/or other countries.

 

[Bagman2524]

Who says all structural engineers design buildings? In the power industry there are all sorts of different structural engineering applications. Knowing a building code is not the most critical thing an engineer needs to know. Knowing basic engineering principles, how to use steel and concrete codes, etc. are.
You learn a lot more in practice than on any test or textbook.

 

[Lutfi]

AggieYank,

I am glad to see that you clarified some of your earlier comments. I think we all agree that certification is required to practice engineering. The certification should be through education and examination. It is my contention that this process has been working fairly well at least in the states that I am licensed to practice in.

However, the entire discussion has been evolving about what happens to those seasoned engineers who met, many years ago, the requirement to practice structural engineers (by taking and passing exams)? Should they go back and get re-tested? I am of the opinion no. IN the same breath, I still maintain that all engineers MUST do continuing educations with concentration on their technical expertise.

You make and case doubt some serious allegations about a fellow engineer. If you feel that his or her work does not meet code and they pose hazard to the public, then you shall do the right thing. Discuss with him/her, his superiors and even regulators.

I can tell you from experience that for certain things I do not run calculations on paper. I may quick numbers in my head or scribble them on a piece of paper. If I get a comfort level, based on my years of experience and previous designs, then I go for it. I am going to cite three examples to demonstrate this:

1. I know by heart that 1/16 of weld that is one inch long is good for approximately 1000 pounds in shear. I am not sure if you know that virtually all welds fail in shear! So if I want to quickly check adequacy of weld in shear I multiply the number of sixteenths by one thousand pounds and them multiply the result by the length of the weld. I Man done. Now if the case is more complex and requires bending and torsional analysis on the weld, I resort to one of my spreadsheets that will perform the complex calculations for me.
2. I use similar approach for bolted connections using A325 bolts in simple of double shear.
3. In line of your argument, about diaphragms, I know by heart that certain roof deck fixation patterns are good for so many pounds per foot. Therefore, I do not perform calculations for these simple cases. Just because it appears to you that I did not do calculations, I am not a bad or incompetent engineer!

I personally know an engineer who is so talented and experienced, he can provide you with a beam size that will work without running one line of calculations. Does that mean he is a bad engineer? You tell me!

Now about marketing:

I happen to be an owner and partner of a 20 person-engineering firm. Your use of the word “schmoozing” is inappropriate. It also demonstrates lack of understanding and appreciation of how business is run and conducted. Marketing is better word. Spend one hour watching TV and tell me how many marketing commercials you will see and hear! This is how business is done. Marketing utilizes many avenues and skills.

Engineers do not advertise their services. Most government agencies follow laws in selecting engineers. The laws require qualification based selection process. This means you do not select the design professional based on his cost! Select them based on their qualifications and past experience. Then you negotiate with the selected team. Lets face it; you do not want the cheapest heart surgeon to cut you open!

Every two weeks we must make payroll for our engineers, CAD and administration staff. If it was not for marketing and specialized marketing skills and talent (which majority of engineers do not have) my office and many others will shut down.

This is where architects are superior to engineers! They are more masterful when it comes to marketing. I have seen engineers conduct presentations and I also saw architects. Engineers lose hands down most of the time. Architects got the world so convinced that they are the only true “Prime Design Professionals” for projects. It is an image that all engineers should be constantly fighting and hoping to reverse. The NSPE has been working hard on reversing this trend as well.

When architects win projects as prime design professional, they control the engineers unless there is a good working relationship between then and the engineers. This is why marketing is essential. Without it, many engineering office will not survive and many engineers may loose their jobs.

That is all. I am having a nice easy morning as tropical storm Ernesto passes though our area.




Regards,
Lutfi

 

[AggieYank]

Lufti, thanks for the comments. I think you may have me pegged a little wrong though.

Schmoozing with architects is the same thing as marketing in my book. I'm not sure why it seems to have a negative connotation with you. You don't need to explain the impact of marketing, as we all know it is the most important aspect of business. My take on the subject is that just because a person is great at "marketing" doesn't mean he can be even a little sloppy on the "hard" engineering side, as I'm sure you'd agree. We're not disagreeing here.

Non-design, or designing things by memory, such as 1/16" of weld being roughly a kip per inch, or the fact that a one story square building isn't going to have diaphragm issues, or that 1/4" by 3" plate x-bracing will be sufficient for a relatively small building, or that a nail is good for 100 pounds of shear, etc, is obviously fine. My examples of things not checked weren't for the basic typical cases.

The only thing we disagree on is the examination vs. grandfathering in for the SE certification (or certifications in general). And as Rod Burgundy says in anchorman, "agree to disagree".

 

[EddyC]

How about doing it like they do in Medicine, where you have a general license (PE in our case), but are optionally (not mandatory) board certified in a specialty? The customer will then be free to select anyone with a PE, but could choose someone who is "board certified" if they so value such a credential. What do you folks think?

 

[samdamon]

Sign me up to be board certified in the "FUBAR" specialty area.
(Will have lots of work). Regards

 

[RARWOOD]

I wonder if the push to have civil engineers registered as SE's, will increase the liability of structural engineers.

 

[mrMikee]

Reading through this topic today and being in a rather self centered mood, I'm thinking about what this all means to me. In one of AggieYank's posts he says "The only people that are benefitted by grandfather clauses are people who can't pass the exam." And I realized that at least for me he is probably right, I don't think I could pass even a PE exam again today. The reason is because I've become specialized over the years and there are areas like concrete and foundation design that I haven't done for a long time.

Fortunately for me this probably won't be an issue. I design a structural product (elevated bins) that are manufactured and shipped throughout the country (US.) PE stamps are seldom required from me or my employer, and I don't think the SE will be part of this business. But I mention this here because other engineers could be in a similar situation due to a variety of different reasons. In my opinion there needs to be a way of recognizing existing competence in the profession without mandatory testing, and that could be grandfathering.

Just thought I would add my 2 cents.

I agree

Regards,
-Mike

 

[Bagman2524]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that those in favor of requiring a SE license instead of just a PE license and retesting to get the SE are the younger engineers whose college coursework is still relatively fresh in their brains; while those of us opposed have been out of school and in practice for a while. Not be detract from the importance of an engineering degree and passes a licensing test, but IMHO we learn a lot more in practicing engineering than in a classroom, which is why I'm opposed to any re-testing to maintain a license.

 

[JAE]

Bagman2524 - I am in favor of SE licenses. I've been in this business since 1979. Of course, I may be an exception rather than a rule.

 

[UcfSE]

Bagman, that would be like me saying that only those who can't pass the exam are in favor of grandfathering. That implies incompetence due to those people allowing areas of their well-oiled machines (brain) to rust. No one likes to be called an inexperienced young pup anymore than they want to be called an incompetent or lazy gray-hair.

Why do we have to bring those with ability down so that those without don't get left behind? Why shouldn't those who can't have to work harder or get passed by? If you really want to raise the perception of our profession, you need to raise the bar, raise the standard for performance, not lower it or keep the status quo.

Really what's the point of all this? Being certified by the SECB is not required and knowing the government, by the time it is, all of our grandfathers who won't/can't take the test will be retired anyway.

Let's keep in mind something. This is meant for discussion, not finger-pointing nor member bashing. I mention no specific person here and only bring up further points for discussion.

Here's another point. Perhaps engineers should have to go to engineering school, like MD's and JD's have to go to their respective schools. Would raising the level of required education to that of the doctor or lawyer help us as a profession?

 

[AggieYank]

MrMikee, thats a good topic you mentioned, one that others have mentioned too. Requiring a SE isn't necessary, in my opinion, for structural engineers that design a specialized item, such as elevated bins, or maybe roof joists, or light gauge studs, etc. Galambos posted an article that mentioned that several states require a SE cert. for buildings over 45 ft. tall, or multi family residential buildings in high seismic, etc. I think requiring the EOR to be SE cert., or something similar, on higher profile, or potentially more dangerous, projects is a good way to go about it.

Bagman, like you mentioned, you learn much more out of school than in school. Shouldn't what you learn make it easier to take an exam though? Does the SE have questions that don't pertain to building / bridge engineering? If it does, then I can see how having had a course recently on construction management, or water resources engineering, or surveying could help. However, I would think that an exam made up by engineers wouldn't have non-pertinant questions however.

I'm in favor of the SE being required because it raises the bar for all structural engineers.

 

[mrMikee]

I support PE licensing and probably the SE license based on what I know at this time. I am in favor of continuing education and/or other means of maintaining competent professionals in structural engineering. If another layer of certification is added there needs to be in my opinion a way to recognize and certify qualified professionals already practicing.

As I said in my previous post the SE won't affect me. My point is that there are engineers that will have difficulty with the re-testing. Personally I would like to learn something new or state-of-the-art to make my employer or me more competitive, rather than to relearn something I haven't needed.

That's the way I see it now, perhaps in my younger days I would have had another viewpoint.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[Bagman2524]

I am in favor of SE licenses as well. But not the way I've seen it proposed on this thread. It needs to be a much more phased in approach. It doesn't seem fair to me to require someone who has met the requirements of their day, (i.e. obtaining a bachelor's in Civil Engineering, passing the EIT, practicing under guidance of superiors for 4 or more years, passing the PE exam of which half includes structural problems, practicing successfully as a licensed engineer for a number of years, meeting continuing education requirements, etc.)to suddenly have the requirement placed on them to pass a test to maintain their license. That's basically like saying, "forget about what you've done in the past to earn your license, you have to start over and earn it again." The current system requires continuing education and monitor's engineers via peers and other methods to ensure they are practicing appropriately to maintain their license.

I also support separating structural engineering out of civil engineering curriculum's in colleges. Civil engineering is much too broad a field as it is and structural should be in a classification of its' own in the college world and proffessional world.

Practicing engineering teaches us things that we don't learn in school, but not necessarily things that will help us on a test. As pointed out by MrMikee, our employers expect us to learn what will help them in their business, not necessarily what will help us broaden our engineering skills or futhur our career. Therefore, its' easy to developed a specialized knowlege which won't necessarily help on a test. Do we take this type of engineer's license away? I don't think so. I think engineers are decent ethical people who know what their level of competence is and won't stamp or sign something they have significant doubts will work. Whic is a point I think has been overlooked in this thread.

My comments weren't meant to bash or belitte anyone. Sorry if I came accross that way. I'm only trying to express strong opinions on something I feel strongly about.

 

[miecz]

What problem are we trying to solve here? The problem, as I see it, is that non structural PEs are stamping structural drawings. I've seen it happen repeatedly. We need to put a stop to this practice by distinguishing structural engineers from others.

The problem is not: that practicing structural engineers are losing their competency to practice and need to be goaded into retraining.

That said, the solution is to establish an SE designation, and require it for structural work. The solution is not: further continuing education, or testing to establish competency. Goodness, some of the worst engineers I've known have been excellent test takers.

Engineers that hold a PE should be grandfathered in. New SEs should be tested as SEs, instead of PEs. In time, the problem (stated above) will be solved.

Engineers with an active family life, a home that requires maintenance, a basic exercise program, and interests outside of the profession don't have time to prepare for further certification, or continuing education. We should not be penalized for having a well rounded life.

 

[Galambos]

jmiec,

as it has been pointed out, some states require an SE stamp for complex structures, which require a higher degree of competency (CA,NV,NM). The higher level SE license is intended to provide this proof of competency (much like the PE), through the eyes of the licensing boards. if we can accept this reasoning for the use of the SE license, i believe that the "no time to study" argument doesnt seem like a very good justification to waive these requirements.

 

[prost]

Perhaps I missed the answer in all the responses above, I apologize if that is the case.

Would it be possible to get back to the original question, as posed by lkjh345? I am a mech. engr. PE, not an SE in Missouri. It appears to me that there is a big difference between 'certification' as proposed by the Structural Engineering Certification Board (SECB) and professional registration that comes with meeting al the requirements for SE or PE.

Is anybody familiar with the SECB? Is it legit or a scam (that is, just another group wanting to take your money in return for little or no benefit to you)? The SECB is proposing a "common national process for structural engineers to become certified." So what? Can you do anything with such a certification? As it stands now, to be best of my knowledge, there is currently no national professional registration; it's all done state by state. Is the only useful license or certification, if you will, the PE or SE for a structural engineer? What SECB is proposing seems to be outside the current professional practice and legal structure; you can't sign off drawings or approve designs with this SECB certification, you still have to be PE or SE (depending on the state). They've got a long list of people who have this certification, but what good does it do any of these people or any of us?

Has any among you gotten this certification and has it done you any good? Now I think Missouri has no SE registration, everyone just takes the CE exam. A quick comparison of Missouri's PE list against the SECB's list shows that of the 11 SECB certified struct. engineers, 9 are PEs in Missouri.

 

[miecz]

Galambos-

I don't accept "this reasoning for the use of the SE license." In my mind, the sole purpose of the SE license should be to prevent non structurals from doing structural work. Passing an SE exam (or accumulating continuing education units) has little relationship to structural competence.

 

[lkjh345]

Prost:

Your post nicely sums up some of my concerns regarding certification.

At the moment, it has no legal significance, as the individual states regulate and liscense engineers. Also, our firm has not expereinced any clients, or potential clients, asking about Certification. So, the benefits to being 'certified' seem dubious at best, where as the costs seem a little excessive IMHO.

Another concern is who exactly appointed SECB to be the arbitrator of Certification for Structural Engineers? Some national organization? Or are they self-appointed?

 

[Bagman2524]

Sounds like they're self appointed to me.

 

[archeng59]

the SECB (

http://www.secertboard.org/)

was started by the National Council of Structural Engineers Association (NCSEA,

http://www.ncsea.com/)

after several years (1998 thru 2003) of discussion among the various member states' organizations. this is a statement copied directly from the SECB homepage: "To provide the public and stakeholders with an identification instrument that distinguishes an engineer with those unique and additional qualities necessary to perform structural engineering." the history of the SECB is available on the SECB website.

I am not advocating or denouncing the certification of structural engineers. personally, I am on the fence about it and have yet to decide whether or not to participate. But I know, as some of you likely know, that the medical profession uses certification as a tool/means to help the public identify a physician or other health care professional as a recognized "expert" in their field. The "expert" was certified by their peers as being better qualified than the un-certified people. There are "board certified" health care professionals all across the US. The medical profession has done a marvelous job "training" the public into thinking that a "board certified" professional is better than a non-certified professional. is that true? dunno. also, the only way being a certified structural engineer means anything is if the public knows certified structural engineers exist. informing the public of this is going to take time.