TehMightyEngineer

Senior Member
  • Content count

    481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About TehMightyEngineer

  • Rank
    Principal in Charge
  • Birthday 03/24/1986

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Structural
  • License
    PE
  • Calculator
    Casio
  • Discipline
    Structural

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bangor, ME

Recent Profile Visitors

850 profile views
  1. Good luck with this final week of studying.
  2. StructuralVFL, since you're doing the OnDemand you don't have access to the PPI forums. Give me a shout out via PM if you have any questions. If I get the time I'll see if I can summarize some of the things we've brought up this current course.
  3. Always check your errata, many problems have (hopefully) already been found and reported.
  4. An interesting thought, perhaps you're right.
  5. Agreed with the above. They use r_avg = 2.66 in to calculate h/r = 54.1. Then An = 40.7 in^2/ft x 4 ft = 162.8 in^2. The solution has An = 161 in^2 so slightly different but close enough. Then they calculate Pa per the MSJC. Everyone definitely needs a copy of TEK 14-01B in their exam notes.
  6. Good info (though unfortunate how you came about it).
  7. According to NCEES: "Your combined performance on both sections much demonstrate minimum competency." Not sure what they mean by "combined performance" but I suspect that they mean you have to pass both and thus a "failed" afternoon gets you a failed exam day. And, yes, this sucks that a single problem can kill your exam.
  8. Thanks StructuralVFL! Hopefully the course is working out for you, last year was a pretty good run with lots of good info. I'm surprised it's the Spring course and not the October course, though. While I'm obviously knee-deep into this years PPI review course but if you have any questions about something brought up during that course just message me and I'll see what I can do. Regarding the score; yeah, scary. That score highly convinced me that any unacceptable kills an exam attempt. I don't believe we know for sure but my guess is something like "needs improvement" is you made a minor math error or missed a step but overall the approach was good. Unacceptable seems to be some major flaw in the math or approach or otherwise it wasn't clear that you knew the material.
  9. Ah geez, thanks everyone!
  10. I did this as well kenny; took the SE in lieu of the PE for my state and then used the SE exam to get licensed in IL as an SE.
  11. I brought a mechanical pocket watch and was told I couldn't keep in on the desk; kinda annoyed but thankfully the exam room had an easily visible clock.
  12. AISC 341 is the specification in the back of the Seismic Design Manual; similar to how AISC 360 is the steel specification in the back of the Steel Design Manual. AISC 341 and AISC 360 are technically all you need to design to; however the manuals are required for the exam as NCEES expects you to have the relevant tables and so on from the manuals. I'm confused though, you said you couldn't find many practice problems but the seismic design manual is full of them. Do you not have the manual?
  13. I don't believe so, but that might have changed since I took it.
  14. Apparently my earlier reply didn't post. When I mentioned the highest scores on the morning in my original post I sorted the scores based on the morning scores and posted both the morning and afternoon scores. For the highest scores on the afternoon I did the same thing but sorted by afternoon scores and showed both. I did this because the passing score is some combination of the morning and afternoon and thus you need to look at both. Plus, if we look at a clearly passing afternoon score you can then determine that the morning caused the failing score and thus try to determine the passing (cut) morning score. Vice versa for determining the afternoon cut score. And, yes, multiple choice in the morning and essay in the afternoon.
  15. Where did I say it would be otherwise?