Bridge Problems

[MOOK]

Does The Structural Engineering Reference Manual (SERM) is enough for the bridge problems for

SE I Exam?

Do the bridge problems in the exam kind of deisgn problems or analysis?

Do the bridge problems kinda of lengthy? or kinda of extracting factors from AASHTO?

I really do not know how to study for the bridge prat especially that I am not a bridge guy.

 

[Jennifer]

No, SERM isn't enough. As for how to study for them, though...I still haven't figured that out. A;; O can say is focus on the building stuff and try to get to know the index of the AASHTO code. The types of problems in the bridge section varied as much as the types of building problems.

 

[Mcgill]

I used Kaplan book for civil eng PE in addition to SERM. I heard bridge book by Kim Kim is good , but I think it is based on old code. Because 20% questions will be from Bridge section, you have to study more.

 

[Jennifer]

I didn't mean don't study it...I just meant that no matter how much I did, I still couldn't figure out the majority of the questions. I spent quite a bit of time on the bridge stuff before this exam and the questions I answered were primarily because I found something in the index of AASHTO. Most of what I studied was not helpful. I used a text book and SERM.

 

[buening]

I didn't mean don't study it...I just meant that no matter how much I did, I still couldn't figure out the majority of the questions. I spent quite a bit of time on the bridge stuff before this exam and the questions I answered were primarily because I found something in the index of AASHTO. Most of what I studied was not helpful. I used a text book and SERM.

If it makes you feel any better, I struggled on the bridge problems for the SE I exam and that is my area of expertise!! .....sad to admit it :brickwall:

Some of the questions that were on there are not something I do every day, because our Department of Transportation disagrees with AASHTO's interpretation....so they do it differently and have developed tables and charts for that stuff.

 

[teda]

I am on the same boat. I do not know bridge design since I am a building guy....Also we do not have any AASHTO code.....I am wishing to be able to answer 30-40% bridge questions based on SERM.

Does The Structural Engineering Reference Manual (SERM) is enough for the bridge problems for SE I Exam?

Do the bridge problems in the exam kind of deisgn problems or analysis?

Do the bridge problems kinda of lengthy? or kinda of extracting factors from AASHTO?

I really do not know how to study for the bridge prat especially that I am not a bridge guy.

 

[Jennifer]

I am on the same boat. I do not know bridge design since I am a building guy....Also we do not have any AASHTO code.....I am wishing to be able to answer 30-40% bridge questions based on SERM.

Find one....I didn't get but maybe one question from the SERM. If you have the AASHTO, a couple may be simple straight from the code problems that you will be able to answer. I found the section/topic in the index and answered a couple I wouldn't have been able to do with out it. One or two problems can make the difference between passing and failing. I know it's expensive, but I'd say get it. (FYI...I passed by 2 points)

 

[teda]

God. Super expensive......will search for bargain on that.....Thanks for the advice and happy holiday!

Find one....I didn't get but maybe one question from the SERM. If you have the AASHTO, a couple may be simple straight from the code problems that you will be able to answer. I found the section/topic in the index and answered a couple I wouldn't have been able to do with out it. One or two problems can make the difference between passing and failing. I know it's expensive, but I'd say get it. (FYI...I passed by 2 points)

 

[McEngr]

God. Super expensive......will search for bargain on that.....Thanks for the advice and happy holiday!

Having done my first major bridge here in Oregon, I have to say that the seismic portion of the SERM is very simplified. They don't do a good enough job discussing how the boundary conditions of the bridge can be analyzed. They also don't discuss bearing plates, prestressed expansion joints, and soil-structure interaction for lateral loading. Also, the SERM AND KAPLAN do not do a good job showing how to calculate scour and wind loads on the substructure. I don't mean to overwhelm you, but these were on the exam when I took it.

I'm too lazy to check which AASHTO edition is current, but most state dot's are now using the LRFD.

 

[McEngr]

Having done my first major bridge here in Oregon, I have to say that the seismic portion of the SERM is very simplified. They don't do a good enough job discussing how the boundary conditions of the bridge can be analyzed. They also don't discuss bearing plates, prestressed expansion joints, and soil-structure interaction for lateral loading. Also, the SERM AND KAPLAN do not do a good job showing how to calculate scour and wind loads on the substructure. I don't mean to overwhelm you, but these were on the exam when I took it.
I'm too lazy to check which AASHTO edition is current, but most state dot's are now using the LRFD.

Also, the AASHTO LRFD has a very complicated means of checking for girder shear. Hopefully, they only ask you to determine your shear capacity by the simplified method.

 

[cowboytns]

Like some of the other posts on here I was suprised by the bridge questions that appeared on the exam. It made me mad...more so at myself for not going to more lengths to study the AASHTO code more extensively. btw without the code I would have been sunk. As it is I feel that the bridge section is going to make or break whether I passed or not.

When I was looking for the code the only place I could find it was from AASHTO. Note that I didn't try to buy it from a former test taker. They offered a special "PE Exam" eddition that was cheaper than the full blown version. When I ordered they said that it was "out of stock" however it ended up shipping the next day. So don't let that scare you if you see it on their website.

To answer McEngr's question it is LRFD.

 

[cowboytns]

I'm sure this may have been brought up before but doesn't it seem to make more sense for the Bridge to be an elective afternoon topic, much like the mechanicals have their specicfic disciplines in the afternoon? I am a buildings person. I bought the AASHTO for this test and learned bridges for this test and will most likely never run into them again. It seems like a waste of time and energy. Shouldn't it be more important that I be "fantastic" in my specific area? Instead I wasn't able to be as sharp on the areas that matter to my discipline because I had to learn bridges.

I'm done lamenting.

 

[cowboytns]

Actually i'm not done. At first when I was reading McEngr's discussion about how the SERM is simplified I thought he was expecting a little too much from the exam. But actually it leads back to my last point. It seams that on bridges it is important to understand scour etc. So why isn't that on the test. Wouldn't you expect a bridge engineer to know that. But it wouldn't be fair in my mind to expect building engineers to learn all of the intricacies of brindges in the time they have to study for the exam. However, if the bridge were a seperate topic in the afternoon you bridgies could go all crazy with the ins and outs of bridge design. Meanwhile the building guys could do some more in depth topics.

All in all to be fair the test seems a little watered down.

okay now I am really done.

 

[buening]

I'm sure this may have been brought up before but doesn't it seem to make more sense for the Bridge to be an elective afternoon topic, much like the mechanicals have their specicfic disciplines in the afternoon? I am a buildings person. I bought the AASHTO for this test and learned bridges for this test and will most likely never run into them again. It seems like a waste of time and energy. Shouldn't it be more important that I be "fantastic" in my specific area? Instead I wasn't able to be as sharp on the areas that matter to my discipline because I had to learn bridges.
I'm done lamenting.

Well, look at it from a bridge guys' perspective. Probably 60-75% of the SE I is buildings or something that bridge guys don't use much. Masonry? Wood? Shear Walls? Rigid/Flexible diaphragms? I spent more time studying ASCE 7, PCI, ACI, IBC, NDS, and others than I did freshening up on my bridge stuff. Even some of the indeterminate analysis of frames took some time. I agree that the two disciplines should be separated in the exam.

I agree that the seismic stuff in the SERM is way to simplified based on my experience with the SE I and II this past October. I wouldn't expect anything over the top for the SE I in bridges. Load combinations and how loads are calculated and other basic stuff I would think is fair game. The SE II is a whole nother ballgame though