BE CAREFUL - NCEES Practice Exam

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

micahferguson1

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
28
Reaction score
2
Just a word of caution to anyone with the most recent NCEES practice exam. The very first question of the depth portion uses an equation from the 2000 HCM, not the required 2010 HCM. And there may be several other mistakes as well. It is still worth having in my opinion, just use discretion.

 
Just a word of caution to anyone with the most recent NCEES practice exam. The very first question of the depth portion uses an equation from the 2000 HCM, not the required 2010 HCM. And there may be several other mistakes as well. It is still worth having in my opinion, just use discretion.




[SIZE=10.5pt]Are you talking about question 501 of the 2014 PE Civil: Transportation Practice Exam? The solution states the equation comes from the [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Highway Capacity Manual, [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]2010[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt], pp. 11-7 to 11-19. Is this not the case?[/SIZE]

https://e3-ncees-org.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/d859a-1504-civ-sqs-transportation-73-5.pdf

 
No the equation is wrong.

It's from the 2000 HCM. That equation is not used in the 2010

 
No the equation is wrong.

It's from the 2000 HCM. That equation is not used in the 2010


I see. Have you guys reported the errata to NCEES? So, if you solve it using the HCM2010, can you/do you get the right answer?

 
I'm pretty sure it worked out the same. I worked this problem a while ago, and never even noticed their solution, I'm sure I just looked for the letter. Micah asked me about this the other day, that's when we realized its from the 2000 HCM

 
I looked at it at lunch. It seems like the solution is okay except for the initial FFS = formula (which should be HCM 2010 formula 11-1).

Have you guys reported it yet?

 
I worked this problem and noticed the error also. I can't remember if I got the same answer or not...I'll have to work that one again just to see.

 
I'm not reporting anything until after 4/17 .... I'm not pointing out their mistakes and getting blacklisted :)

 
Problem# 530. the way they go about checking for warrant #1 is a bit odd. Why use 70% column when you have population of over 10,000?. What did I do wrong?.

Also when comparing columns, are we allowed to mix columns for the major and minor roads?like 100% column major vs 80% column on minor? I think the answer is no, but wanted to hear it from you guys.

 
Problem # 538. They find a new C value, but did not updated the total area. Shouldn't the divide by 60 rather than 50?. That's what I did and I think I'm right.

 
I'll have to look at at #530 but I remember #538. The total area doesn't change, just the coverage type. So you take 10 from forested and add it to commercial (think I remembered the categories correctly).

I'll take a look at both in a bit, taking a break from tabbing.

 
My books are packed, but on 530 is the speed limit over 45?? That puts you into the C column of 70%

 
Problem# 530. the way they go about checking for warrant #1 is a bit odd. Why use 70% column when you have population of over 10,000?. What did I do wrong?.

Also when comparing columns, are we allowed to mix columns for the major and minor roads?like 100% column major vs 80% column on minor? I think the answer is no, but wanted to hear it from you guys.
You can use the 70% column if the population is less than 10,000 OR the 85th percentile/posted speed exceeds 40mph.
I haven't read the question, but I'm guessing the speed is more than 40 if they used the 70% column.

 
Thanks, and sorry for the late acknowledgement. But it was very helpful when I was doing the practice exam.

 
Back
Top