Jump to content


Photo

Construction Depth Reference Manual


10 replies to this topic

#1 rfernandez7

rfernandez7

    Intern

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 08 September 2011 - 12:29 AM

Someone told me today about the Construction Depth Reference Manual released by PPI this year.

I trust that this is a pretty good resource for the exam, but before dropping the $110 for it, I thought I would ask for feedback.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this book?

Thanks.

#2 barracus79

barracus79

    Intern

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:03 PM

i'd love to know the same!

#3 Dexman PE PMP

Dexman PE PMP

    Most Likely to be Arrested for PMP'n his PE-ness

  • Moderators
  • 18,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A mile above the beach dwellers.
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:52 PM

Another angle to consider: Do you think that not spending the extra $100 on a reference is worth the risk of not passing? Worst case is you find the book worthless, in which case you're no worse off with studying and you can sell it off. If you do find it helpful, you will find that passing the PE is worth significantly more that the petty $100 you spent, plus you can sell it off afterwards.

Either way, you can sell it off to recover 80% or more of your money back. Consider it a $20 investment.

Most of what PPI has put together is helpful and well worth the money.

#4 constructjerry

constructjerry

    Intern

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • Discipline:Construction

Posted 03 November 2011 - 06:04 PM

Can anyone who used this book to take the October 2011 exam weigh in on how well it prepared you for the Construction PM exam?

Were there certain resources and topics that it did a better job of covering than others?
Was there anything important it totally missed?
On the same lines, was there anything it essentially substitutes for? (it seems to include a lot of appendix tables from ACI SP-4 and ASCE 7)

I'm going through it now and find it pretty well put together (other than the calculation errors in examples...check the errata on the website for corrections). But, i haven't dug much into other construction references yet to see whether there is a lot of key info that the Depth Reference Manual is missing.

#5 treyjay

treyjay

    Professional Engineer

  • Senior Member
  • 74 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 03 November 2011 - 10:20 PM

Can anyone who used this book to take the October 2011 exam weigh in on how well it prepared you for the Construction PM exam?

Were there certain resources and topics that it did a better job of covering than others?
Was there anything important it totally missed?
On the same lines, was there anything it essentially substitutes for? (it seems to include a lot of appendix tables from ACI SP-4 and ASCE 7)

I'm going through it now and find it pretty well put together (other than the calculation errors in examples...check the errata on the website for corrections). But, i haven't dug much into other construction references yet to see whether there is a lot of key info that the Depth Reference Manual is missing.




I took the Construction Depth last week. I also had the Const. Depth Manual.

Sorry, to say, but I really should have saved my money. Very little in the book was useful for test prep (which is why I purchased it). I get the impression that the book was written by a pure academic type.

There was one thing though, that I did find very useful:

(density dry borrow)BCY = (density dry loose)LCY = (density dry fill)CCY

That right there can save you alot of trouble in solving dirt problems.

I found the NCEES sample problems, School of PE & the Rajapakse books (esp the workbook) the most helpful for prepping for this exam.

#6 constructjerry

constructjerry

    Intern

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • Discipline:Construction

Posted 04 November 2011 - 03:16 PM


I took the Construction Depth last week. I also had the Const. Depth Manual.

Sorry, to say, but I really should have saved my money. Very little in the book was useful for test prep (which is why I purchased it). I get the impression that the book was written by a pure academic type.


Can you give an example or two of what the book covered vs. what you think it should have covered?
Was the problem that it covered theory too much and not enough practice?

So far, I thought it did a decent job with earth and material quantity estimating and equipment production, but I haven't taken any practice tests yet to see whether it covered what was necessary.

#7 EnvEngineer

EnvEngineer

    Principal in Charge

  • Veteran
  • 448 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Knife Making, Mtn and Road Bike
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:22 PM

The most valuable references I found were the references used by NCEES in prep of the practice exams. They were the only references that had the depth for the project planning and also costing. You can find older editions that have the same information on Amazon pretty cheap.

Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods by Peurifoy

#8 treyjay

treyjay

    Professional Engineer

  • Senior Member
  • 74 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Discipline:Civil

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:48 PM



I took the Construction Depth last week. I also had the Const. Depth Manual.

Sorry, to say, but I really should have saved my money. Very little in the book was useful for test prep (which is why I purchased it). I get the impression that the book was written by a pure academic type.


Can you give an example or two of what the book covered vs. what you think it should have covered?
Was the problem that it covered theory too much and not enough practice?

So far, I thought it did a decent job with earth and material quantity estimating and equipment production, but I haven't taken any practice tests yet to see whether it covered what was necessary.




The best way to study for the test is to work problems...as many as you can...that relate to the NCEES outline.

The Const. Depth Manual would be a much better test prep manual if it provided example & practice problems (lots of them) for each of the topics rather than academic theory.

I am not saying the book is a bad book or that it does cover the exam topics, but it just lacks as a test prep manual.

#9 Samuel

Samuel

    Intern

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • Discipline:Structural

Posted 28 November 2011 - 01:06 PM

The book is OK as a revision note but there are not too many examples like Ruwan book. The crane section was not properly ccovered in the book. Overall it gives basic knowlege of construction mangement. I would not say it's a coplte waste of $100 for you can always resell the book after use.

#10 giddyupmaster

giddyupmaster

    Noob

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Evansville, Indiana
  • Discipline:Construction

Posted 13 December 2011 - 01:52 PM

I didn't see this thread until today, but I found the book to be pretty worthless. I would say 75% of the material is just a duplicate of the construction section out of the new CERM. Also, keep in mind that it's not 110 pages of material, there is also a practice test (I'm not sure if it is different from any other practice test or if it is the same questions). Looking back, that's the only reference I took in that I didn't use for a single question, but that was on the October 2011 test and could be different for the next exam. HOWEVER, with all that said, I did buy it, and would probably buy it again if I had to do it over.

#11 ajlong42

ajlong42

    Intern

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Discipline:Structural

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:47 PM

I took the October 2011 Exam and PASSED! I did buy the CDRM. It BLOWS! It will mess you up worse than help you! Luckily I realized this several weeks before exam time. It is poorly written and full, absolutely FULL of mistakes. Take my word for it!

Edited by ajlong42, 22 December 2011 - 04:47 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 photo
=