DKS - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About DKS

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
  • License
  • Calculator
  • Discipline

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alberta, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @OldSquaw and @Dr. Barber I believe that the equation for transmissibilty in 2.15.3 appears is correct as it is for force transmitted due to base excitation, rather than for force applied to an oscillating mass (through, for example, rotating unbalance). An equation that is equivalent to 60.55/60.56 from MERM13 appears on page 691 (equation 9.94) of the Fourth Edition of Mechanical Vibrations by S.S. Rao for force applied to an oscillating mass, whereas an equation that is equivalent to the equation that appears in Section 2.15.3 of the NCEES manual appears on page 241 (equation 3.74) of the Fourth Edition of Mechanical Vibrations by S.S. Rao for base excitation. Basically both the equations in the NCESS manual and MERM13 are correct, but are used for two different methods of exciting the mass. Hope that helps.
  2. It depends on the state and where your degrees is from. For example, the State of Michigan accepted my (Canadian) degree without a credential evaluation, while the State of North Dakota required an NCEES credential evaluation. In each case it was the state board's rules that determined whether or not a credential evaluation was required, and not NCESS. I know that some states treat Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) accredited degrees as being equivalent to an ABET accredited degree, but many do not.
  3. DKS


    @LyceeFruit so glad to hear you passed! I logged in just to see your success this go around.
  4. @Saahil Y.K., Your undergraduate degree is very unlikely to be ABET accredited. You can confirm here: As for what to do with the missing general education hours, @NikR is correct, check with your state board. If you are missing courses NCEES allows CLEP courses to make up deficiencies or re-evaluation of you education if you can demonstrate taking additional undergraduate courses.
  5. DKS

    Where to start?

    I'd like to chime in here and suggest that, at least for, the Machine Design and Materials (MDM) PE exam, the PE exam might be easier to prepare for than the FE Mechanical exam because the breadth of the MDM is narrower than the FE Exam (no fluid mechanics, no thermodynamics, no heat transfer, no measurement, instruments, and control, etc.).
  6. I agree with @jean15paul_PE. I think he has offered solid advice.
  7. I send wishes of good luck from the great white North to all that are writing tomorrow. Hope to see passes all around!
  8. @Will.I.Am I can confirm I used my straight edges, i.e. rulers, for measuring scales when I took the October 2018 MDM exam, so I would say that it would be prudent to have at least one ruler even if you don't wind up having to use it... it can't hurt...
  9. Has anyone on the board sought out the IntPE/APEC Engineer designations for international work? If so, can you comment on the usefulness of these designations in streamlining the licensing process in other jurisdictions? I find it somewhat ironic that NCEES maintains the registry in the US, but does not recognize the agreements themselves. Thoughts?
  10. I tend to agree with the opinions already stated here that the current format that tests solely on one sub-discipline of expertise (MDM, TF, HVAC) is more appropriate than the breath and depth format of years past for the following reasons: 1. The purpose of the exams is to determine minimal competency to practice engineering in a particular (sub) discipline; most mechanical engineers specialize in their practice so limiting the breadth of the exam while increasing the depth is appropriate, 2. Demonstration of the ability to learn minimal competence in the other sub-disciplines has already been established to some extent in the FE exam. More pragmatically, by passing the PE exam in the current format a person has demonstrated the ability to absorb knowledge at a sufficient level, that in the opinion of NCEES, they have demonstrated minimal competency to practice engineering. If a person can demonstrate that ability in a sub-discipline than it is probable that they can develop that same level of competency in the other sub-disciplines given enough effort. How much material should a practising engineer be responsible to recall in an examination setting?
  11. First off, the requirements and difficulty of a Ph.D. qualifying exam varies greatly between universities, within departments in a given university, and even by examining committee within a department! I consider myself having gotten off easily, as my candidacy examination consisted of writing a research report of about 60 pages in length on my research topic and an oral exam of about 90 minutes by my examining committee (my two co-advisors, the examiner internal to the department, and the examiner outside the department). The contents of the report was a literature survey, methodology, some numerical/experimental results, and a discussion on the originality of the research/proposed future work. This report was approximately the first three chapters of my Ph.D. thesis. In this case there was no examination of material outside of my research project, as the intent of the candidacy examination in my case was to determine the likelihood of succeeding in the research component of a Ph.D. program. I had a relatively friendly examining committee. Notwithstanding the relatively light requirements of my Ph.D. candidacy examination, the writing of the report alone (i.e., not including the research) took me more time than the preparation time for my PE and FE exams combined. I think (that at least in my case) preparing for the PE exam required less effort and was less uncertain than preparing for my Ph.D. candidacy examination because the topics on the PE exam were well defined and required no original research. By way of comparison, the PE exam was straightforward relative to the Ph.D. candidacy examination. As has been stated above, the intents of the two examinations are very different. I've found that in the market I'm practising in, holding a Ph.D. in Engineering while working in a consulting environment adds weight and credibility to the opinions that I express. I've also found that it has added an estimated 40% premium on the renunciation received compared to holding a M.Sc./M.Eng. and even more compared to a B.Sc. A word of caution is that consulting is different from a research environment in that you need to deliver something usable to the client in a cost-effective and reasonable time frame, i.e., you can't turn jobs into "research projects." Be aware also that the reasons for pursuing a PE license are different for the reasons for pursuing a Ph.D. The former is a legislative requirement to practice engineering, while the latter is an advancement of a body of knowledge. Hope that helps.
  12. Essentially yes. For example in Alberta (From Part 1 of the ENGINEERING AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT): 2(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional engineer, a licensee so authorized in the licensee’s licence, a permit holder so authorized in its permit or a certificate holder so authorized in the certificate holder’s certificate, shall engage in the practice of engineering, where: (q) “practice of engineering” means (i) reporting on, advising on, evaluating, designing, preparing plans and specifications for or directing the construction, technical inspection, maintenance or operation of any structure, work or process (A) that is aimed at the discovery, development or utilization of matter, materials or energy or in any other way designed for the use and convenience of humans, and (B) that requires in that reporting, advising, evaluating, designing, preparation or direction the professional application of the principles of mathematics, chemistry, physics or any related applied subject, or (ii) teaching engineering at a university; The exceptions are: (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following: (a) a person engaged in the execution or supervision of the construction, maintenance, operation or inspection of any process, system, work, structure or building in the capacity of contractor, superintendent, foreman or inspector or in any similar capacity, when the process, system, work, structure or building has been designed by and the execution or supervision is being carried out under the supervision and control of a professional engineer or licensee; (b) a person engaged in the practice of engineering as an engineer-in-training or engineering technologist in the course of being employed or engaged and supervised and controlled by a professional engineer, licensee, permit holder or certificate holder; (c) repealed 2007 c13 s4; (d) a person who in accordance with an Act or regulation in respect of mines, minerals, pipelines, boilers and pressure vessels, building codes or safety codes for buildings is engaged in any undertaking or activity required under or pursuant to that Act or the regulations under that Act; (e) a person who, on the person’s own property and for the person’s sole use or the use of the person’s domestic establishment, carries out any work that does not involve the safety of the public; (f) a member of the Canadian Forces while actually employed on duty with the Forces; (g) a person engaged or employed by a university whose practice of the profession consists exclusively of teaching engineering at the university. Yes. From, To know whether a document needs to be authenticated, can you answer yes to both of these questions? 1. Does the document contain technical information as defined in the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act? 2. Is the document complete for its intended purpose? The Professional member who seals the document "is assuming full professional responsibility of that engineering or geoscience work." (
  13. Note that the membership dues in Alberta are not unusual for Canada. See figure below (costs are in Canadian dollars and do not include taxes) for November 2017 (taken from The fees go directly to the regulators, with no other association fees included. (Note that the provincial/territorial member associations are members of Engineers Canada, which is similar in some senses to NSPE but only the regulators are members of Engineers Canada, not individuals.) We do get some member benefits (, but I don't think these explain the cost, given how APEGA describes their mandate. To wit, [t]he Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) regulates the practices of engineering and geoscience in Alberta on behalf of the Government of Alberta through the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. Our main regulatory function is licensing individuals and companies that want to practise engineering and geoscience in Alberta. I am speculating that part of the reason that member dues are so high in Canada is because the professional associations can charge these prices. In Canada there is no industrial exemption (with the exception of Ontario), so anyone practicing engineering is required to become licensed. Hope that was informative.
  14. It is certainly unimpressive compared to what APEGA (Alberta) hands out, but it was somehow more satisfying for me to receive in the mail than my APEGA license...
  15. Just for fun, I added Alberta Canada to the list for anyone interested in what happens up North...
  • Create New...