# 16 Hour Structural Engineering (SE) Exam Review - FALL 2013



## djrexy

Hello coleagues engineers.

I'm PE licensed in several states and I tried applying in GA for a PE license. I got an answer from the Board stating that I need to pass the 16 hrs SE exam in order to be granted one.

My questions to all of you that have any experience with this exam are:

1) What Online Review Course would you recommend for the SE EXAM - Buildings? I only noticed Kaplan, School of PE and ASCE. If any other available, which do you think is most comprehensive for passing the exam?

2) What study materials (books, codes, etc) would I _really need_ for the Buildings Exam? ( I don't intend to apply for Bridges so I assume I won't be needing the AASHTO 07 code). As I have most of the design codes I imagine I would need to just "fill in the gaps" where my experience is not so extensive.

3) What exam practice problem books would you recommend?

I thank you in advance and look forward for your feed-back.


----------



## Porta John

1. I did not take a review course so I can't speak to how helpful they really are. I think that the good old tried and true method of studying at home is the way to go rather than going to a review course. Thats just my perspective though so take it for what its worth.

2. don't be so quick to dismiss the AASHTO Code,

you will have 10 to 15 questions on the AM to even if you're taking the buildings portion of the exam. Other than that, take a look at NCEES website, as they post which codes you will be needing


----------



## captaincaution

SEAOI offers a great review course that you can take online, but that begins in the fall and goes through the week or two before the April exam date. It focuses mostly on buildings, but also has a few sessions on bridges which was enough to get me through the MC questions on the exam.

Ditto on jkells response to #2. The MC bridge questions can be easy points, but only if you have the code.


----------



## Mark Leyner

I'll provide support for a dissenting opinion against AASHTO. I studied structural engineering in an AE program, so I didn't have any transportation background. I planned and studied to pass the SE based on my responses to building questions only rather than trying to become proficient with a thoroughly unfamiliar code. I also didn't have access to an AASHTO, did not want to buy it specifically for the exam, and did not want to carry it with me to the exam.

I assumed that there would be 10 bridge questions on each AM portion, leaving 30 building questions. In order to pass the AM portion, I assumed that I would need to answer a minimum of 26/30 building questions correctly - i.e. 87%. I further assumed that given 10 bridge questions and assuming that the correct responses are randomly assigned and that you randomly guess at all 10 questions, you can conservatively expect to get 2/10 bridge questions correct thus providing some additional margin against the 26/30 requirement for the building portion. I prepared accordingly.

Personally, I would be surprised if more than 10 bridge questions showed up in the AM exam. Even so, not all of those questions require consulting AASHTO for a solution.

My sole bridge reference for the SE was the SERM. I was able to answer some questions with confidence. I had to guess at an answer on others. I was able to provide an answer with confidence on other bridge questions that didn't require consulting AASHTO or the SERM. This strategy worked for me, I passed both exams on my first attempt.


----------



## Porta John

djrexy said:


> I'm PE licensed in several states and I tried applying in GA for a PE license. I got an answer from the Board stating that I need to pass the 16 hrs SE exam in order to be granted one.




On another note... has anyone else had this experience? I wasn't aware that any east coast states are currently requiring the 16 hour SE for engineering licensure. Illinois is the closest to the east coast, and it sounds like Florida will be incorporating some SE requirements soon, but from the reading I have done, GA isn't a state that currently has practice or title restrictions.

Can anyone else chime in?


----------



## djrexy

jlkells said:


> djrexy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm PE licensed in several states and I tried applying in GA for a PE license. I got an answer from the Board stating that I need to pass the 16 hrs SE exam in order to be granted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note... has anyone else had this experience? I wasn't aware that any east coast states are currently requiring the 16 hour SE for engineering licensure. Illinois is the closest to the east coast, and it sounds like Florida will be incorporating some SE requirements soon, but from the reading I have done, GA isn't a state that currently has practice or title restrictions.
> 
> Can anyone else chime in?
Click to expand...

GA RETARDED RULES: (there is no Structural Engineering License or Speciality)

http://sos.georgia.gov/plb/pels/board_policies.htm

*10-01(to replace 03-01) *1. Beginning with exams administered in April of 2011, the exam prescribed by the Board for applicants whose experience is structural engineering as determined by the Board, shall be the NCEES Structural exam which consists of two 8 - hour components. 2. a. Comity applicants whose experience is structural engineering as determined by the Board and who first became registered as a Professional Engineer or Structural Engineer in another state on or after January 1 of 2011, will be required to have passed the NCEES Structural exam (totaling 16 hours) or another 16 - hour exam as approved by the Board. b. Comity applicants whose experience is structural engineering as determined by the Board, who first became registered as a Professional Engineer in another state before January 1, 2011, and who have not passed at least an 8 – hour structural exam approved by the Board, will be required to have a minimum of 60 months of structural engineering experience acceptable to the Board following the pass date of their examination. (effective 12/07/2010 replacing Board Policy 03-01) .


----------



## djrexy

Mark Leyner said:


> Personally, I would be surprised if more than 10 bridge questions showed up in the AM exam. Even so, not all of those questions require consulting AASHTO for a solution.
> 
> My sole bridge reference for the SE was the SERM. I was able to answer some questions with confidence. I had to guess at an answer on others. I was able to provide an answer with confidence on other bridge questions that didn't require consulting AASHTO or the SERM. This strategy worked for me, I passed both exams on my first attempt.




I really liked your effective planning and if you don't mind I'd like to know more about your studying strategy. Could you please disclose your reference books and any review course taken? I'd like to know how you managed your time daily in order to study and practice exam problems. I know that if there's no pain there's no gain and hard work pays off.

If you passed both modules from 1st attempt that's one recipe I'd like to follow!


----------



## Chosen One

The Georgia requirements for comity are tricky....they told me I didn't have enough post PE exam experience and that I needed to pass the SE exam since I practiced primarily structural engineering but took the Civil (structural depth) PE exam. Once I got my passing results in June for the SE, I forwarded the results and had my license number within an hour.

As far as review courses for SE exam, I took both ASCE and Kaplan. My company paid for the ASCE course since we had multiple test takers and it was expensive, around $2000 if memory serves me. The sessions were taught by a lot of University of Louisville professors and were on Mondays and Wednesdays from 3-5pm EST. It was way too broad for my liking....did it help? Sure, but I would have been pissed if I'd paid out of my own pocket. It is an overview of the test topics with no detailed, short problems (which I preferred in my studies)....a couple of the instructors spent forever going through a laborious, exhaustive example that I couldn't stay awake through.

I took the Kaplan lateral exam review course and thought it was much better value (~$500). It isn't super in-depth, but unlike the ASCE course, you can go back and review it as many times as you desire. I watched Tim Mays sessions probably 5 or 6 times each on bridges, loads, and general lateral forces. A big key in passing the exam for me, was repetition through the seminars and problems so that as soon as I saw a problem on the exam I had an approach and knew what they were asking.

This exam isn't impossible to pass, it took me multiple attempts and a ton of hard work, but it was well worth it.


----------



## Mark Leyner

OK. Here is my best advice for preparing and passing the SE exam. The fundamental principle is that you will "fight like you train", i.e. - if you practice solving problems under exam-like conditions, you will be more successful than other methods of study.

I read everything I could find about the exam - magazine articles, forum posts, the SERM intro, etc...the second principle is "know your enemy". Understand what the exam is and what it is not. In my opinion, the examination tests your ability to recognize what is being asked and provide an answer within a short period of time. For the PM portion, I would add to the first two - while using good engineering judgment.

Here is a list of references that I actually took into the examination room:

ACI, AISC, TMS, NDS, PCI, ASCE, IBC codes

AISC SDM, SERM, and three 1" binders. The binders had some solved problems from the AISC, the Kaplan masonry design material, flowcharts from Reinforced Concrete by Nawy, SEAOC vol. 1, and a printed index to the SERM.

These materials all fit into an officemax copy paper box along with my exam authorizations, calculators, ear plugs, and a small straightedge.

Every time I attempted examination-like problem-solving, these were the only references I used.

In terms of preparation - I read a lot of material and followed through solutions to worked problems. I highly recommend working through SEAOC Vol. 1 and reading the code sections and footnotes for each reference covered in those problems. Seismic and Wind Forces by Alan Williams and Structural Engineering PE License Review Problems and Solutions by Alan Williams are recommended resources. I also worked through the example problems in the AISC SDM.

I took each AM practice exam twice, separated by a couple of weeks of study in between. I scored the practice exams and then reviewed my solutions against the answer keys. For problems that I missed, I read the relevent code sections and highlighted "tricky" things like exceptions and footnotes that drive you somewhere else. I photocopied the PM problems and solutions and put them into a binder. I carried that binder to work and "solved" those problems when I had time in addition to working them under exam-like conditions during my study sessions. NOTE - IN MY OPINION, the solutions provided for the PM portion of the NCEES practice exam are a minimum amount of information to successfully pass the problem.

I spent a minimum of an hour every night after work studying. I spent between 4 hours and 8 hours on weekends, depending on whether or not I was taking a practice exam. I wanted to put in 300 hours of study for the exam, I'm not sure I made it to 200 hours.

Some other factors that may have swung the needle one way or the other:

I have a Master's Degree, I took the Civil-Structural PE October 2012 (didn't study other than taking the practice exam and passed), I taught Reinforced Concrete II and Mechanics of Materials at a local university in the Spring of 2012, I am an Associate Editor for an ASCE journal (I read and evaluate a lot of research), I read a lot of technical books in my free time (mostly math and engineering), I spent the first two years out of school doing a lot of design work by hand (no software), i've spent the last four years doing more project management than design and analysis - but i try to keep my hands in the technical stuff.

I think most of those factors helped my pass the exam. Fundamentally because I'm "current" in recognizing problems and solving them mathematically in addition to being familiar with several codes. It has been said before and I think it's worth repeating. In order to pass the SE examinations, you need to recognize what is being asked, you need to know where to find your supporting information, and you need to execute the mathematics for solution in a very short time. i.e. - By the time you finish reading the question, you should already have the correct reference in front of you and perhaps even be opening to the correct chapter/section.

Last words (I promise) the above was written cold and I haven't reviewed it, so it's probably not as linear and certainly not as concise and clear as it could be. I'll do my best to clarify or answer any other questions. I hope you found something useful. Thanks for everyone before me willing to take the time and help me prepare for my exam. Good luck to all future examinees. Remember, you fight like you train, so train smartly!


----------



## Porta John

Mark,

Very well said. I think you have just helped a ton of future SE's on their way. It sounds as if you were diligent and pragmatic about studying for the exam, but not over the top.

I agree, I think 200 hours is plenty to study for an exam, especially if you are well rounded and up to speed on technical design in your day-to-day job.

Frankly, if I had studied much more than 200 hours, I would have had some serious burnout, which is never a good thing. You have to maintain somewhat of a life outside of engineering/studying, and not putting in 16 hours _every _weekend probably helps in the long run.

Again, thanks for posting that.


----------



## djrexy

OK,

Question for TMS 402/602-08

I was just going over the NCEES Structural Engineering Design Standards

and I READ THE FOLLOWING NOTES:

"Revised April 16, 2012 (*) "

" TMS 402/602-08 (2)"

" * 2 - Examinees will only use the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method, except strength design Section 3.3.5 may be used for tall slender walls with out of plane loads from wind and seismic. "

Is this note applicable to masonry structures only? I don't suppose to be enforced for any other material.


----------



## djrexy

_PURCHASED BOOKS &amp; CODES_

SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual 2009 IBC Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3

Structural Engineering Reference Manual 

16-Hour Structural Engineering (SE) Practice Exam for Buildings 

NCEES - Structural Engineering (16-hour) Sample Questions and Solutions

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings And Other Structures: SEI/ASCE 7-05 (ASCE Standard No. 7-05)

AISC Steel Construction Manual, 13th edition

AISC Seismic Design Manual, 3rd printing
--------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## kevo_55

That's a good start!

What practice problems are you thinking about getting?


----------



## Porta John

djrexy said:


> OK,
> 
> Question for TMS 402/602-08
> 
> I was just going over the NCEES Structural Engineering Design Standards
> 
> and I READ THE FOLLOWING NOTES:
> 
> "Revised April 16, 2012 (*) "
> 
> " TMS 402/602-08 (2)"
> 
> " * 2 - Examinees will only use the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method, except strength design Section 3.3.5 may be used for tall slender walls with out of plane loads from wind and seismic. "
> 
> Is this note applicable to masonry structures only? I don't suppose to be enforced for any other material.




Correct, applicable to masonry structures only.

fyi, I believe you can use ASD or LRFD on steel problems.


----------



## bassplayer45

Confidence and comfort play a huge role here. The first time i took the Vertical Buildings portion of the exam, i tanked. 16-40 morning, Needs improvement, unacceptable, acceptable in the afternoon for bridges. The second time, i felt super comfortable studying, made lots of example essays, went in, finished the morning right on 4 hours, finished the afternoon early, passed. Took the Lateral portion in April, did alright, 21 - 40 morning, same results for the afternoon (not too bad for only studying a month or two and never having to do seismic or wind in my life). Just like the first time i took vertical, i wasnt comfortable at all, i am hoping the secnod time i feel better and my studying pays off. As a bridge guy, 5 - 10 bridge questions in the morniing is about right. You can probably answer 3 of them using the SERM, but the others will definetely require AASHTO. Whenever i get stressed and nervous about the test, i remind myself this is a difficult test, only a small handful of people have this license around the country, it requires this amount of work and will feel great once we finally get it


----------



## djrexy

I decided to give "School of PE" a try for the SE Exam review on OCT 2013. It sounded like 60 hours for Lateral Forces should be a substantial review. From what I've seen, they have Professors as staff to provide refreshers, and deliver a sound theory but unfortunately they are not so prepared as they should when it comes to code details. Too basic so far and I'm still in the fog with some code questions. I would not imagine that any professor is an actual P.E. or S.E. capable of code analysis.

My California Seismic Exam preparation course for the PE License was MUCH MORE IN DEPTH than the SE Lateral Forces that School of PE is offering. Frankly the review it's only good for the Bridge Design part. I'm a bit disappointed.


----------



## TehMightyEngineer

I'm sorry to hear that. Still it should be good enough to point you to weak areas and give you a good foundation to build upon. Once you identify any issues you have then perhaps you can make some topics on here for you to get further information about the topics you're weak on.


----------



## djrexy

I finally god my results for the SE Exam in October 2013. Failed on both Vertical and Lateral.

From the feed-back it seems that some the classes I took were good, some other really sucked.

SCHOOL OF PE - SE Review:

1) The Concrete section was excellent,

2) The wood portion was okay but need improvement

3) Masonry was deficient and needed improvement

4) Bridge was okay but needed improvement

5) Steel was terrible and incomplete


----------

