sac_engineer - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

sac_engineer

Members
  • Content Count

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sac_engineer

  • Rank
    Principal in Charge

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Civil
  • License
    PE
  • Calculator
    TI
  • Discipline
    Civil

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. I've always wondered how exam results can be transferred between states without being a PE due to lack of experience. In CA, no one can take the exam prior to having the necessary experience and referrals, whereas in Nevada, you can take the exam before you've gained the experience, even right after senior year, but have to work 4 years to become a PE. Sounds like as long as you meet CA's experience requirements before applying for the state-specific exams, the PE exam can be transferred from another state even if a PE license wasn't granted.
  2. There's never a quick and dirty, plug-and-chug way to solve these problems because they can vary. I think you just need to understand that soil has a different densities in situ versus in transit versus in place. If possible, you always want to solve for the dry unit weight and density at each phase. Moisture is the main variable that affects total density and volume. Also, the term is "borrow", not "burrow". Good luck!
  3. Yeah, it went up a lot! But the renewal fee went down $10. That must have been part of the fee negotiation talks.
  4. Usually a question like this includes a borrow scenario where you're excavating, hauling, and placing material from one site to another while tracking the material's compaction and moisture content.
  5. Most engineers don't travel as much these days other than for construction jobs or for specialized work. For general civil engineering work, it's not common for design engineers to travel frequently unless the client and/or project required some on-site presence. Apart from construction, engineers associated with processing or manufacturing (industrial, chemical) may have a higher chance of travelling between their office and the plant. Design-build projects may require some last-minute travelling for the design engineers if the construction location is far enough away where it would require some lodging, but most design issues can be resolved over the phone and internet to exchange updated design plans.
  6. I think the rest of us find it fascinating that we're flogging this horse of a question to no end. It's time to call it a day on this one. The method of calculating the 85th percentile is really a no-brainer and doesn't merit an academic exercise.
  7. The test is 2.5 hours, but the time slot takes into account setup and closeout time so that the next examinee can sit at the computer at their designated time. Test booklets would be necessary since they require all handwork to be done in them. Don't stress out. This solution has exceeded my expectations of the Board's response to the exam debacle.
  8. My favorite line from Maybenexttime's letter is "filling my gas tank with gas to drive to and from the exam site"... I didn't know you can fill your gas tank with another liquid! It's always a good practice to make sure someone else proofreads a letter, especially to an Executive Officer of a Board from which you're seeking licensure. The letter is laying the message a little too thick without providing any solutions. It's a complaint letter that doesn't reveal anything new to Mr. Moore. Venting is not a solution nor does it provide any influence to make the Board act any faster in response to the survey exam debacle. The feelings of anger and frustration are justifiable, but to convey it in a letter (i.e. permanent record) is futile. As a CA taxpayer, the only cost the Board should be required to compensate is the application fee. If people want a refund, they're entitled to it until the next time they want take the exam. Parking, airfare, hotel, gas, etc. are incidental to all of our lives regardless of the reasons for their expense. Plus, if there was some slim chance of being reimbursed, it wouldn't take away the frustration.
  9. Prometric was given this task for the state PS exam, someone demanded a month lead time for scheduling. That puts the test back to June, at best. I suspect there are going to be more issues on that idea anyway, given that there have already been problems getting that exam set up properly. Might not be a good idea at this point in time. If the exam were to be rescheduled in June, it would mean they would have to evaluate all of the exams in about 2 or 3 weeks. This would give them time to provide new PE licenses to those who only needed surveying to pass, as well as a 3-month lead time for examinees who may not pass (in June) and would take it again in October. It has been a logistical nightmare already so I wouldn't be surprised if they announce that the next survey exam will be in October.
  10. I completely sympathize with everyone affected by this fiasco. It's an unprecendented circumstance that truly does not have proper reconciliation for everyone. What will we deemed as fair by the Board will certainly not be a shared feeling by most of the examinees, and vice versa. Here's what I think will happen: 1. Option #1: The Board will reschedule the survey exam before the next schedule exam session in October. At this rate, I don't see the exam rescheduled before June. This option will avoid over-crowded exam rooms in October as well as maintain a healthier test environment by not intermingling disgruntled (rightfully validated) and new examinees. 2. Option #2: The Board will not reschedule the exam, i.e. the next exam will be held in October. This will mean they will need to accommodate a greater number of examinees and deal with an adverse, possibly hostile, environment because some people had to wait 6 months and unnecessarily re-study everything. I do hope the Board considers rescheduling the survey exam sooner than later. Most of the examinees do not use surveying principles in their job, so I'm sure by now they have already forgotten most of what they studied, but it will be difficult for most to prepare for the exam the longer the Board delays a rescheduled date. From my point of view, this is a tragedy in epic proportions. It has reduced the reverence of earning a PE license and this incident will live on in infamy for a very long time.
  11. I was also thinking about the question and my previous method was incorrect. I agree with ptatohed that the offset to the left is with respect to the direction of the curve and would increase the radius to 1806 feet. The left/right perspective is similar to hydraulic modeling where the left and right banks are located with respect to the flow direction of the stream.
  12. Also, the arc length of the original curve is 362 feet, so a shift of 12 feet of the PT (i.e. 3% of the length), regardless of direction, would not yield nearly a 400-foot difference in the radius (30% difference less than the original) as your answer is showing.
  13. The only info we have is: "The forward tangent is to be shifted parallel to itself and 12' to the left." The shift can only be assumed a slide 12 feet to the left because no other directional information is provided. If it's a right angle offset, then we would only need to add or subract this offset to the radius. jaa046: can you provide a diagram?
  14. My approach is like ptatohed, but my formula's are different: Chord length of original curve (horizontal line connecting PC and PT) = 2 x 1430 x sin(14.5/2) = 360.92 feet Since the PT is shifted horizontally to the left by 12 feet and PC is the same point, the new chord length is 360.92 - 12 = 348.92 feet and the new radius ® can be calc'd by ratio with respect to original radius and original chord: new (chord / radius) = original (chord / radius) 348.92/R = 360.92/1430 R = 1382.45 feet
  15. Bravo mrt406! The process of solving this question is about calculation, not just by adding some numbers then determining which bin the next highest number falls into. Another example of an acceptable calculated value is the number of people per household: 2.59. Common sense tells you that there's no such thing as a 0.59 person, but it's calculated, just like the 85th percentile. Maybe we need to occupy the offices of the US Census Bureau and stand up for the 0.59!
×
×
  • Create New...