AlexPE - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

​ ​ ​

AlexPE

Jr Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About AlexPE

  • Rank
    Intern

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maybe all that studying and exam failures are worth it in the end? Maybe, just maybe... by developing such a horribly written, poorly graded, asinine exam, it was the intention of NCEES all along to have each one of us delve deeper into our inner selves - to find meaning in our endeavors, and to persevere when grasped betwixt the jaws of defeat by a contractor who's done this for 30 years? Naaahhh. Failures = mo $$.
  2. Just use an old one you never plan on using for anything else. Ive used the same for PE, SE1 and SE2 and its about ready to disintegrate. Dont do what 1 guy at my testing site did, which is carry them all in by hand.
  3. That would be incredible. Id pay a handsome sum if you could get this thing published by the time next year's test rolls around. For reals though - one thing that really hurts is not having a text book covering the lateral design and analysis situations. You people keep hating on SERM, but it was the ONLY reference I needed during the vertical exam's concrete and cmu questions (I passed that exam and wouldnt be surprised if I hit 100%). It does an excellent job of giving you the most important equations and steps to take, and always includes where to find the relevant section of code in case you need it (plus large margins for notes!) However I recently found out (the hard way) that SERM sucks monkey balls when it comes to lateral design (vegas set my over-under at 24/40, 2A, 1NI, 1U and im taking the under). I think a large reason for this variance between vertical and lateral exam performance has to do with my lack of exposure to lateral questions and steps/checks during analysis. In other words I dont need theory... the lateral chapter of serm, seaoc vol 1, asce commentary all have plenty of theory - to the point where I feel like I could teach a class on lateral design theory. Instead, the most useful textbook would design/analyze a building frame, starting with load distribution, load cases and combos, and continue down to seismic detailing of the foundation - all the while describing what checks to make, and what code sections to review if some uncommon situation arises. I look at it like this: there are 88 practice problems for the exam (44 ncees and 44 ppi - one could count solved, 6 min, and seaoc too, though the solutions too often feel more like college test questions than actual NCEES questions). Those practice problems cover alot of ground, but there are some glaring holes. Someone like you, Mr FutureSE, is in a great position to write a book such as the one you propose. You have taken the exam, what... 4, 5 times now? You thus must have a good grasp on which topics they find important (i.e. load combinations!), which techniques have been covered to death (i.e. flexural stress in CMU, or seismic design category, anyone?), and which topics are important but barely discussed in the codes or practice exams.... like I am still amazed at how its possible to have NOT seen a structural irregularity problem (ncees style, not seaoc's) or a directional procedure problem (thats right - the most basic, enclosed condition) prior to the test! No amount of code reading, highlighting or note-taking is going to take the place of actually doing problems. So in conclusion (sorry for the rant!), what the world needs are more questions and step-by-step solutions covering the basics in a comprehensive sense, with tips and code references for possible variations to given conditions. Like how serm does gravity... do THAT for lateral. I said it before and ill say it again -FutureSE for president!
  4. FutureSE for president? Got my vote! Part of me thinks some of their questions are truly thoughtful and open-ended, where they are attempting to gauge if there is a concensus on the interpretation of the codes (example: see the solution to the brace base plate punching shear question in the NCEES practice exam). The other part of me thinks that structural engineers just suck at writing questions (and writing in general). Speaking of the practice exam, anyone else notice the error they made in the errata for the wood shearwall question? Like... wtf?? They need errata to fix the errata?!? Bro cant even errata properly, how the F he gonna grade our exams?
  5. What are the chances NCEES makes the switch to 2016 ASCE7 and AISC? I know the 2010 ASCE7 seems rather dated, but most states adopted 2015 IBC which references 2010 ASCE so maybe they wont switch yet? I ask because I borrowed from an ex coworker, and im wondering whether to give him back his books or the newer editions if he wants them (since I utterly destroyed the copies he gave me by writing and tabbing so much). And im 99% sure i failed the lateral, so need to start planning for round 2.
  6. "Maximum moment" could mean plastic moment or elastic moment, factored nominal moment, allowable service moment, since it was steel - expected moment. Plus in either direction - or square root sum if SDC D or 1+0.3 if part of a bridge. Definitely not reduntant, but turns out 70% of you missed the overstrength factor... Just kidding. But yea I wish we all got a challenge flag to use during the exam.
  7. As for the rest of the exam, definitely harder than I had anticipated. I passed vertical last year and felt like it was fairly straightforward. I told my wife I aced it after I finished. But not this time! Think I straight up guessed on about 10 in the AM (worst feeling in the world is to "know" how to do a problem, but fail to arrive at any of the answers, or arrive smack in the middle between two answers). Like that question about the sign. Such a simple question, we all know how to do it. But depending how you interperet the question, its possible to arrive at 4 of the available answers (I checked it 4 different ways, 2 directions and with/without safety factor). Maybe I just need to brush up on my english. Sorry if Im being too specific. This exam has consumed me...I need to vent to someone who understands.
  8. I literally have had nightmares every night since the exam about this problem. I wake up thinking I figured it out, but realize it was just dream logic. Without being too specific, I clearly remember the question asking us to find the "minimum" x. Whats messed up is you go through ELF and get x, but find its higher than X given in the table... well at least I did. Which means I have to be wrong... right? Maybe I screwed up R, or maybe I was supposed to combine directions? But after reading through asce after the test again and again and again, I feel like the answer just isnt in there. If someone out there thinks they got it, please PM me. I miss being able to sleep.
  9. PASSED! FUCK YEA!!!! (assuming its finally official) So... now what?
  10. Didn't hear that, it was second hand though - too afraid to ask the poor guy himself...
  11. Well that makes me feel better that NJ had some glitch "fail" (poor souls)... Not to scare anyone though, but last year a coworker "passed" and even got a license number before PCS contacted him and said he failed.... now THAT sucks.
  12. Is there anyone who saw the glitch, but it said they failed? Just worried now that the glitch defaulted to "pass" for everyone, and they are updating those who "failed"
  13. aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnddddd its gawn.... all gawn.... Said i passed. Glad i took a picture. Now its just blank.
  14. Thanks for your help choyos! much appreciated! Another question for the PPI sample exam by lindeburg.... The solution to problem 154 sets the weld strength equal to shear rupture in the plate. Doesn't shear yielding need to be checked for this as well? I found that the plate actually needs to be 1/2" thick to accommodate shear yielding, which is larger than 0.4" (the "solution" to the problem). Perhaps there is a reason why shear yielding does not need to be checked in this case? Thanks again for your help!
  15. For the solution for question 138 in the Lindeburg PE sample exam: why is the equation for the stiffness 12EI/L^3 for each column? The problem asks you to idealize the structure as a cantilever, so shouldn't the stiffness be 3EI/L^3 for each column (like a cantilevered beam)? They account for the fact that there are 4 columns later on in the solution, so I must be missing something with the original stiffness equation. There's nothing in the errata for this problem. Could someone help me out? Thanks a bunch!
×
×
  • Create New...