TehMightyEngineer - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

TehMightyEngineer

Members
  • Content Count

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TehMightyEngineer last won the day on June 15

TehMightyEngineer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

60 Excellent

About TehMightyEngineer

  • Rank
    BRB Starting an Engineering Firm
  • Birthday 03/24/1986

Previous Fields

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Maine

Recent Profile Visitors

1,853 profile views
  1. Darn, yeah just take the PE and at least get the license stuff out of the way. Good to have it anyway since there are a few states that require you to have your PE to get licensed no matter what (NJ for example).
  2. What? I have a Florida PE license and I've never taken the PE. Granted, Florida wasn't my first state so maybe that's the hold up? See if you can get licensed in another state first and then licensed by comity in Florida.
  3. In case someone missed it, here's the previous passing rates compared to David's post of this last exams passing rates. Looks like bridge lateral and vertical buildings were difficult this year.
  4. I mentioned it earlier in this thread but we've never had good indications whether it was possible until now. You would have to be very confident you got AAAU on the afternoon to "confirm" it. We did theorize that a really high morning score would get you a passing score but we had failing scores well above 80% on the morning that were failed because of a U on the afternoon if I recall. Either way, I'd say we can safely modify our understanding that an unacceptable on the afternoon will "generally" fail you.
  5. I like your humor and agree with you more than generally I'd like to admit. I 100% agree with fuck NCEES, but my anger stems from their records debacle. For me I passed the SE when I felt I deserved to pass so that's been my experience; however you're not the first person to feel unfairly treated by this exam so perhaps I'm just lucky? Regardless, I agree with you on the state of engineering as an industry. Seems like you've really got the short end of the stick in a lot of things. Hopefully you can find a way out of the regional BS you're dealing with. Change of local maybe?
  6. This is almost unbelievable. About the only way I can see this passing is if you nailed the multiple choice. I was unable to find someone who felt they had nailed a multiple choice and got an unacceptable a afternoon problem. I've always wondered if this was considered a passing score by NCEES and, if you truly didn't write anything for an afternoon problem, then you may have done just that. Another consideration is they threw out a portion of the afternoon problem you didn't complete so you got partial credit even though you did no work. That seems unlikely though. Either way, good info. How well do you think you did on the morning section? Our previous data (which is always going to be incomplete since we only see failing scores and not passing scores) was that an unacceptable fails an exam with even a really good morning score. The above are the highest morning scores that I've found mentioned here that still had a failure. Both appear to have been failed by that unacceptable. I've had confirmation that an acceptable on an afternoon can be obtained with partial work but never with no work done; that seems like it would always default to unacceptable. Thus, you passing would signal to me that you got better than 35/40 on the morning or they gave you credit due to a error on that question. Either way, huge congratulations. Congratulations! Nice to get those done one year apart. All the people on year 3+ are jealous of you. Damn, sorry to see you throw in the towel but I can understand that. You're definitely close but I know you've been close for a while. I hope you still have some value in the experience working towards the exam. Yeah, you probably needed around 26-27 on the morning judging from the other scores that failed. Not really, 26-27 is likely the target for the morning on this exam based on my previous estimates of cut scores. Definitely a ton of people who are very close though. Dang, I agree that 803 probably killed you. Good luck next time around and stay motivated; you're so close. Some of those morning questions must have been brutal or tricky. Lots of people scoring in this range on the morning. Wow, you must have been very close. Definitely worth some praise getting 3 acceptables. Congrats on passing vertical. Congratulations to all who passed; and good work to all regardless of your score. Everyone is clearly working really hard on these exams and I hope you're becoming a better engineer regardless of whether you pass on your first or sixth time. It will be interesting to see what the change in passing rate are for April's exam period. For records, this is December's pass rate: SE Lateral Forces Bridges 38 16% 45 36% P&P Twice per year Dec 2018 SE Lateral Forces Buildings 241 36% 264 38% P&P Twice per year Dec 2018 SE Vertical Forces Bridges 44 32% 20 45% P&P Twice per year Dec 2018 SE Vertical Forces Buildings 300 36% 206 21% P&P Twice per year Dec 2018
  7. I had no idea that was an older song. Heard a nice remix of it recently and loved it, so catchy.
  8. I loved the tech briefs for studying and did bring printouts along in my notes.
  9. Another vote for the Casio FX-115ES. I tried a bunch of different calculators and ended up loving this one. Gave me my fastest, most consistent input and helped me catch errors. Liked it so much that I have two and use them as my main work calculator.
  10. I just want to thank everyone for reminding me why I'm so glad I'll never have to take that exam again. Good luck, guys and gals; lot of great advice here and I love seeing the comradery twice a year.
  11. Oh it is that time of year, isn't it! Good luck everyone; don't study too hard and enjoy your surplus of free time after exam day(s).
  12. Good advice tj. We're also in a rush to get it permitted; I'll see what our code enforcement official says when we submit for permit. I should have enough time to try running the entire bottom area as R = 1.5 and I'll see if seismic controls over wind; should at least give me a better idea of whether this is an issue or not.
  13. Kind of my thought; essentially I'm modeling the steel piles as fixed 5 feet below grade. Thus, they do have some cantilevered capacity with works with the cable bracing in my structural model. If I ignore the piles the structure turns into a three-sided structure though, so I am relying on the cantilevered steel piles to some degree. Might be worth running a combined horizontal system analysis with R = 1.5 for the side that doesn't have cable bracing; fairly confident it won't control over wind even with that though.
  14. Interesting topic. I have a building structure supported on steel screw piles in a low-seismic region I'm working on right now. Screw piles extend out of the ground and I have cable bracing between posts. I'm designing it for an R = 3 but I'm kind of blending my lateral resistance from the fixed steel posts and the cable bracing. R = 1.5 seemed too low for this kind of system, and wind controls over seismic at R = 3 . Does it make sense to keep using R = 3 or would you folks run this at R =1.5?
  15. Agreed, I'd just bring the structural pages and if you wanted to really cut down on the printing you could cut out a good bit of the structural sections that you don't feel are required.
×
×
  • Create New...