How updated does the CERM have to be for the exam?

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Alpha Dog

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
White Sands, NM
I noticed that Lindeburg's Civil Engineering Reference Exam is the most popular reference for the exam, and I also noticed that I can save some serious cash by buying an earlier edition.

Is there any advantage to buying the latest edition as opposed to an earlier one?

I plan on taking the Civil PE Exam, structures depth. Any insight on how to study and what to have as a reference will be appreciated.

 
My advice is if you already have a CERM and it is within, say, 1-3 or so, editions old, and you don't want to spend the money to replace it, then you'll be okay keeping what you have. But if you don't currently own a CERM and you are buying one for the first time, I think you should spend the extra money and start off with the latest edition. Good luck.

 
Agree with ptato. The one thing you need to be careful with is updated standards. Not sure what depth you're taking. Transportation, for example, has seen some pretty significant changes over the past few cycles. The HCM was updated from 2000 to 2010 and many equations were changed. I know that most trans people will have the new HCM but just using that as an example.

 
Since the building codes change so frequently, I would caution against an old CERM for Structural depth. For instance, if you have an old book, you will not know the multiplication factor for Wind is now 1.0 instead of 1.6. That may be an easy question on the exam that could trip you up if you don't take the time to make up your old edition with the new ASCE 7-10 codes and the IBC that reflect that. Any other afternoon speciality may not have the same issue.

 
I started studying with the a very old version (2000 maybe). For my discipline, I don't think it mattered. Geotech doesn't change much if at all. I just wanted to have the book because everyone was saying that I should. But also there were a few things (I really mean a few) that were more elaborate in the CERM than they were in my All-in-One. Honestly, I could have gotten away with just using the All-in-One and supplement with school books/notes and pages from elsewhere without using the CERM. I got a hold of the 2014 version for a short time. It was the same as the 2015 yet they managed to add 20+ pages to the 2015 index so I'm guessing there is more content. But again, for my discipline, it didn't matter. I ended up using the 2015 one after all. I got it for free from work. They ordered it and I just had to give it back. 

I would suggest seeing if you can get it from your job (co-workers who took it recently or maybe your job will order it to add to their library and for others to use). Also, try local libraries (mostly universities). A friend of mine had his girlfriend check it out from her university library and renew it a few times until he was done with it. He used the 2014 edition.

 
It depends.  Since you're taking the structural depth if you have updated references for the latest design codes (ASCE, ACI, AISC, IBC,etc) I don't think its worth it to spend extra to get a newer version of the CERM.  

In my opinion the CERM is extremely valuable for the AM portion of the Civil exam (I genuinely think I used the CERM on 34-36 of the 40 AM civil questions), but I didn't use it much for the PM portion of the Civil/Structural as I just used my codes instead.  

If your codes are outdated it might be more useful to have a newer CERM, but still I would recommend spending the money to get newer codes and go with an outdated CERM.  Bernoulli's equation and horizontal/vertical curve type equations you're going to find in the AM portion of the Civil exam haven't changed and won't be related to a specific code update.  ASCE 7 wind provisions which you'll find on the PM civ/structural will be code update dependent.

 
Back
Top