Construction PM Harder?

I took the construction PM in April 09 and October 09. I noticed for the October 09, the problems were getting harder. There were problems that were similiar to the practice problems but with a "kick" to it, a "kick" I didn't see in the April 09 exam.

Anyone else notice it too? I am debating switching over to water resources/environ for the PM section.

I think the most important thing to do is pick one and really go for it. If it seemed like the "kick" was stuff you just wouldn't be able to study because of the lack of study material out there, I'd go WR.

From someone who tried Construction the first year it was out, and then passed the next test taking transportation

Perhaps PE-ness could lend some insight on which one is harder.

I agree with csb. What kind of "kick" was added to the exam? (obviously don't put specifics because the NCEES is watching) Do you think the extra difficulty is something that can be learned through studying references, or is it more of an experience based thing?

I obviously would not recommend switching depths unless you have experience in that depth. There's no substitution for experience. You may be able to learn the text-book way of doing some of the problems, but your experience will tell you what the equations mean and it will allow you to manipulate the information properly.

<-- took and passed the inaugural construction depth (April 08)

I only took construction pm in oct09 (passed) so I can't be sure what the difference was from previous exams. I thought it was very similar to the NCEES sample exam. The exam did occasionally combine scheduling, productivity and estimating concepts in a single problem. Maybe this is the kick you are meaning? I think the real difficulty of construction PM is that it pulls from structural, geotech and transpo so you have to be familiar with problems from many topics.

I have to say I didn't feel like it was experience based. Most was very academic. When I worked for a GC, I never once determined loads on formwork, nor did I ever find curve values for a road or design a concrete mix. These tasks are usually done by subconsultants. When calculating cut and fill, you use software and never take into account moisture content since it changes daily. Quantity take off is a common task, but it's really just geometry. Finding costs and productivity is usually done by a phone call to a specialty contractor. On the exam the data is just given to you. Scheduling requires experience for sequencing, but the calculations are done by the software. The exam however tests you only on the calculations since the sequencing is already done for you. Managing subcontractors, reading drawings and contracts were not really covered on the exam.

yatkins said:

I have to say I didn't feel like it was experience based. Most was very academic. When I worked for a GC, I never once determined loads on formwork, nor did I ever find curve values for a road or design a concrete mix. These tasks are usually done by subconsultants. When calculating cut and fill, you use software and never take into account moisture content since it changes daily. Quantity take off is a common task, but it's really just geometry. Finding costs and productivity is usually done by a phone call to a specialty contractor. On the exam the data is just given to you. Scheduling requires experience for sequencing, but the calculations are done by the software. The exam however tests you only on the calculations since the sequencing is already done for you. Managing subcontractors, reading drawings and contracts were not really covered on the exam.

Click to expand...

The reason I say the exam was experience based is because the GC I worked for had us do all of the above. We didn't subcontract this stuff. We had subcontractors, but doing the estimating and managing of their work was part of it. It was part of the engineer training course they made all us new-hires undergo. It just depends on what kind of construction experience you have. Apparenly yatkins worked for more of a managing contractor, where I worked in the field offices in a more hands on environment.

We had to do formwork loading, especially when trying to phase out pier and tall wall concrete pours. We would take field measurments for cuts and fills, because they would change as the construction continued (we had to be able to do it on the fly as a check for all of the daily production reports), and the only "software" we used was on our calculator. I agree on the moisture content part, but we did have to understand it had an influence on things like ready-mix concrete (wetter aggregates make for a wetter concrete), and because the soils in CO are so rich in clay, we had to account for shrink/swell (some soils had could swell by over 100% when wet, but those were typically hauled off as waste). Then because the engineers helped manage crews, we had to know our productivity, budget, and our costs. We even had to submit monthly crew cost reports to corporate.

Dex I think your GC experience sounds like something I would have enjoyed and yes very different from mine. I was in the field as well, but my hands on work was usually problem solving with the superintendent and sub foremen as a project manager. Although I was titled "project engineer" I never felt like I really did any engineering work and was one of only a few in my company with an engineering degree. I eventually left the contracting world for consulting because I felt my technical skills were not being utilized.

Regarding the exam though, my point is that I coped with these problems in the exam without ever having performed those tasks in the real world so I think others could too.

^Again this goes to show that the contruction test is not the easiest of the bunch. If you don't know how to build it then you will not do well on this test. Experience in addition to a knowledge and applicaiton of theory is required to pass, not just the Green Book. Congrats on passing!

ElCid03 said:

^Again this goes to show that the contruction test is not the easiest of the bunch. If you don't know how to build it then you will not do well on this test. Experience in addition to a knowledge and applicaiton of theory is required to pass, not just the Green Book. Congrats on passing!

Click to expand...

Just wondering if there was a recommended list of references and study aids to study for and pass the construction PE? I have CERM, OSHA 1926, and other school text books but know i need more refs. NCEES provides such a crazy list - i can't afford all those! Based on what I've read, I need MUTCD and ACI books at a minimum for references during the test. In regard to studying for the exam, I read this book is pretty good... http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/irvin...Detail?no=359... and also Ruwan's book.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

For the exam itself:

At a MINIMUM, I would suggest the CERM, MUTCD, OSHA, and a crane selection/rigging reference (Bob's Rigging & Crane Handbook is a great resource). This is because these were all I used for the exam. Others also recommend the Ruwan book, but I have not seen nor used it so I can't comment on it's usefulness.

Study aids:

The NCEES practice exam is spot on with what types of questions/wording to expect on the exam. It's a great place to discover your strengths/weaknesses to adjust your studying.

Others have also raved about the 6 minute solutions books. I don't have any experience with them.

With the above being said, I will never discount the NCEES reference list. The references listed can be necessary depending on your work experience and what areas you need help with. Your employer may purchase some of these books if you can convince them that it's needed for their business. Check with your local library to get a few others. Don't feel like you have to purchase all the books, just get creative with how you get ahold of them.

Thanks Dexman PE. I've been working closely with the NCEES book to get a handle on the types of problems and have been solving the problems in both the morning and afternoon disciplines in that book. I also purchased the CERM problems and tackle those on a daily basis. Since construction depth question books are scarce I'll probably pick up Ruwan's and get a hold of as many refs as i can as you suggest. My employer already gave me the big fat "no" in regard to paying for review courses, study materials, and references so I'm on my own (F them). In additon, they don't have much to choose from anyway so I'm screwed there too.

On another note I was wondering how many hours you studied for the exam total? I have three kids (and a wife) so studying for me means about 11-15 hours per week tops (nights/weekends). I might break 150 total before it's over but I've heard 200-300 is best.

Thanks for the feedback and I'm really liking your signature photo! Kinda distracting when your trying to study!

Obviously the more studying you can do, the better. But don't stress out over the QUANTITY of the hours, focus on the QUALITY. You can easily turn in 300 hours of studying, but if you're constantly interrupted, thinking of other things, etc, it's not going to do you much good.

What I would suggest is setting up your own little study-sanctuary. Find a place where you can go that will allow for the best study environment (minimize distractions), and that allows you to leave everything set-up. You will find that if you have to set-up and clean-up each time you study, you will find you only get 30-40 min of actual study time done.

When I started studying for the exam (started studying Feb 2008, exam in April 2008), my wife had just re-started school (accelerated program for her 2nd degree), and I had a 2.5yr old and a 10mo old. I was fortunate enough to have a separate office/spare bedroom I could use where I could get my books/notes/etc laid out without being in the way of anything else and so I could just jump right in when I had time to study.

My wife and I also implemented a new bed-time routine with the kiddos which really worked out for everyone:

8:30pm = Kiddo bath-time (including brushing teeth, getting pj's on, & bed-time story)

9:00pm = kids in bed

Afterwards, my wife and I had 1.5-2 hours available to study (Mon-Fri nights). On the weekends we would alternate "escape days" where Saturday I would watch the kids all day while she went off to the library, and vice-versa on Sunday. We really had to force ourselves to get most of the housework done while the kiddos were still awake. Meals were reduced to quick 5-minute type meals or take-out, and we used paper plates/plastic silverware as much as possible to cut down on housework. Needless to say, it was probably one of the most miserable periods of my life, but I'm glad we endured it.

If it's something you truly want, you will find a way to make it work.

pleasepass said:

ElCid03 said:

^Again this goes to show that the contruction test is not the easiest of the bunch. If you don't know how to build it then you will not do well on this test. Experience in addition to a knowledge and applicaiton of theory is required to pass, not just the Green Book. Congrats on passing!

Click to expand...

Just wondering if there was a recommended list of references and study aids to study for and pass the construction PE? I have CERM, OSHA 1926, and other school text books but know i need more refs. NCEES provides such a crazy list - i can't afford all those! Based on what I've read, I need MUTCD and ACI books at a minimum for references during the test. In regard to studying for the exam, I read this book is pretty good... http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/irvin...Detail?no=359... and also Ruwan's book.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't waste your money on Ruwan's book. I bought it and I was pretty disappointed. It looks like it was written in a 1992 version of Wordperfect and the formatting is pretty consistent with the content. My biggest complaint is that it doesn't even have a table of contents. The organization is all over the place so I only see it being a frustration during the exam. The discussion on the various topics is very superficial and it does not go into enough depth to really explain any of the topics that it addresses. If you don't have a clue about construction topics it might be a good introduction. Granted it is the only Construction Depth reference out there but that is all that it has going for it.

Agreed Ruwan's book is not great. Formatting is bad, content is OK. He's turned down my two offers to help him improve it.

In addition to Dex's recommendations, the wood design books and SP-4 were referenced during the exam as were ASCE 37-02 and 7-05, the AISC steel manual is useful for deflection equations but similar ones are found in CERM as well.

I didn't have a crane book and I'm not really sure what is in such a book.

I brought in the sample problems books I used for studying, but never used them in the exam.

As for study time, I had a goal of 100hrs but never found the time for it. I ended up with 2x 2hrs for 8 wks, then another 30 hrs the last 3 wks before the exam.

I agree "Agreed Ruwan's book is not great. Formatting is bad, content is OK." but I am not sure where you can get some of his content for less $$. He has 4-5 sections that are really necessary, format sucks, publishing sucks, but content is good. For the $ I think its worthwhile, he has a new edition but I have not heard if there is any reason to get it new.

EnvEngineer said:

I agree "Agreed Ruwan's book is not great. Formatting is bad, content is OK." but I am not sure where you can get some of his content for less $$. He has 4-5 sections that are really necessary, format sucks, publishing sucks, but content is good. For the $ I think its worthwhile, he has a new edition but I have not heard if there is any reason to get it new.

Click to expand...

I used Ruwan's book for the Oct 09 exam and subsequently passed. But it was merely another weapon in my arsenal of material. The book is relatively disfunctional, as mentioned it doesn't even have a table of contents. For my preparation, I just worked the example problems in it and tabbed ones that I felt I would need to reference in the exam - like concrete mix design. For all of it's shortcomings I do think that it was a good value given the lack of alternatives.

Since October are there any new references for Construction?

Dexman PE said:

yatkins said:

I have to say I didn't feel like it was experience based. Most was very academic. When I worked for a GC, I never once determined loads on formwork, nor did I ever find curve values for a road or design a concrete mix. These tasks are usually done by subconsultants. When calculating cut and fill, you use software and never take into account moisture content since it changes daily. Quantity take off is a common task, but it's really just geometry. Finding costs and productivity is usually done by a phone call to a specialty contractor. On the exam the data is just given to you. Scheduling requires experience for sequencing, but the calculations are done by the software. The exam however tests you only on the calculations since the sequencing is already done for you. Managing subcontractors, reading drawings and contracts were not really covered on the exam.

Click to expand...

The reason I say the exam was experience based is because the GC I worked for had us do all of the above. We didn't subcontract this stuff. We had subcontractors, but doing the estimating and managing of their work was part of it. It was part of the engineer training course they made all us new-hires undergo. It just depends on what kind of construction experience you have. Apparenly yatkins worked for more of a managing contractor, where I worked in the field offices in a more hands on environment.

We had to do formwork loading, especially when trying to phase out pier and tall wall concrete pours. We would take field measurments for cuts and fills, because they would change as the construction continued (we had to be able to do it on the fly as a check for all of the daily production reports), and the only "software" we used was on our calculator. I agree on the moisture content part, but we did have to understand it had an influence on things like ready-mix concrete (wetter aggregates make for a wetter concrete), and because the soils in CO are so rich in clay, we had to account for shrink/swell (some soils had could swell by over 100% when wet, but those were typically hauled off as waste). Then because the engineers helped manage crews, we had to know our productivity, budget, and our costs. We even had to submit monthly crew cost reports to corporate.

Click to expand...

+1 That's all I did when I worked for Archer Western/Walsh Group

i think its harder since hard to find specific books