# Why Civil - Structural?



## Lungshen (Dec 15, 2015)

I mean really, ever since the Structural I, and Structural II exams came out in 2003 and the new 16 hours Structural exams in October 2011....

Why is Civil : structural afternoon still offered by NCEES now? Its all multiple choice questions in the morning and afternoon, no essay type problems. You don't need to show any calculations. It covers other Non-structural related questions such as geotechnical, construction, transportation, environmental and water resources. The real structural question are basic loading and code stuff....I think I saw "shear and moment" diagram on the exam standard...I was like "what? this is on a PE exam? I thought you are suppose to know these at your FE".

So I have few mind boggling questions but no one seem to be asking: 

For those of you who passed the 16 hour Structural, do you think civil-structural can be as competent as you are when designing a building/bridge structure?

Do you think Civil - Structural is an easier way out for those who can't pass the REAL structural exam?

The only excuse I can think of are those engineers who sign drawings for steel joist or metal truss, fueling canopy steels as delegated design items and never actually design a whole building/bridge structure system. they don't need to know about vertical and lateral building system.

You, as a SE, do you recognize and respect Civil:Structural PE's as your professional peers or do you think Civil:Structural are second class "structural" engineers?

If they are...why even offer such exam?


----------



## David Connor SE (Dec 15, 2015)

Probably has to do with the fact that most states still don't recognize the SE exam for licensure as a *PE*.  Structural engineering is still very much ingrained in the discipline of "Civil" engineering as well.  I think they had a vote at NCEES recently that would have made the SE exam the "standard exam" for structural engineers but it was rejected, mostly by other engineering disciplines and land surveyors. I think there is 2 reasons for this. First, the other disciplines didn't want their professions to be diminished by only having 8 hour PE exams, and they don't want their professions to have to follow suit with a 16 hour exams down the road. I think the vote was very close though and maybe during their next session this will change.

That being said, I think most young structural engineers are starting to realize they need to take the 16 hour SE exam and in a couple years or so the SE exam will become the standard exam for structural engineers.


----------



## Giuseppe (Dec 15, 2015)

David Connor pretty much nailed it.

Until the SE is more widely accepted as the benchmark for structural engineering licensure across at least a majority of the states, there has to be a discipline-specific barometer.  The Civil-Structural is it.  

I personally have no issue with it.  There is a multitude of outstanding structural engineers that don't have 'SE' behind their names.

That said, I think in 10-15 years the SE is all there will be for our profession, and I'm OK with that too; if there is one engineering discipline where a higher threshold of competence is requisite, it's ours.  It's the primary reason I knocked the exam out after having been licensed as a PE (via Structural I) for over twelve years.


----------



## darius (Dec 15, 2015)

Well, you are asking a difficult question and I think we can’t generalize it.

And to answer one of your questions (You, as a SE, do you recognize and respect Civil: Structural PE's as your professional peers or do you think Civil: Structural are second class "structural" engineers?), from my personal experience, I work with a guy who doesn’t have even EIT but probably can teach structural engineering to most registered SE’s and on the other hand personally I worked few years back for a guy with PE SE and you couldn’t ask anything but wood design for one or two story residential buildings.

 

Sometimes you just don’t need SE or too much knowledge, when most of your work is related to some specific areas and sometimes I believe that having experience beats un-experience knowledge.

 

Also if SE will get adopted nationally, it will be so much harder to become an SE comparing to any other engineering discipline, even more there are states who will not allow you to sit for SE unless you have a PE (or civil license) and some years of experience after passing PE. Definitely right now, a SE license is more valuable in the states where SE License is required for designing any kind of structures.


----------



## gogo (Dec 15, 2015)

I am not sure why anyone would call PE civil structural as anything - if you would know a bit of history, civil structural is the root of all engineering - no one needs construction guy or geo tech guy or water resource person if the structure is not designed? 

geotech is done for structures, construction is of structures, water resource is managed by structures - 

Second and more important point - SE is not adopted by many states - in those states PE Civil structure is the ONLY licensed profession. It would be actually very idiotic to suggest take out structures all together.

The place where I work even Assh---- plumbing or electrical engineers routinely stamp structural drawings without even knowing if A36 is the size of their Hole or material spec.


----------



## David Connor SE (Dec 16, 2015)

I hope the last sentence in gogo's post is tongue in cheek!  Even though a PE stamp is a PE stamp, it would be a stretch for an electrical engineer to say structural drawings are in his/her "area of expertise."  I could see a civil "site" engineer maybe getting away with that because at least it is civil engineering, but across disciplines wouldn't fly with any board of professional engineers or court of law.


----------



## Giuseppe (Dec 16, 2015)

Gogo's post broke my interwebs.


----------



## Lungshen (Dec 16, 2015)

Well, I asked three questions but they can be all combined into one question: Is Civil-structural exam equivalent to the 16 hour Structural exam to serve as the bare minimum requirement and standard for someone to be competent enough to design a building/bridge structure?

If the answer is a resounding no, then the engineering community should really ask ourselves why Jurisdiction still allow PE stamps on building/bridge structural construction documents.

I was first licensed as PE with Structural I exam back in 2004, after almost 8 years, I took the 16 hours because they don't offer Structural II anymore. I missed the boat but I was glad that took it. I passed both vertical and lateral on first try. I did spent a lot of time study and refresh the materials for it. I believe the process did make me a better structural engineer - if nothing else at least I am more "up to code" on my code knowledge.

My mentor was a Civil PE - structural. Old school structural engineer, complicated, and does every calculation by hand. He was the most detail oriented and competent structural engineer I have ever known. He has over 30 years of experience. I have a lot of respect for this guy.

Then, I know a young engineer from work who's been designing building structure for years but DO NOT want to take 16 hour SE, took and pass the Civil:Structural PE and thinks he/she knows everything. Being a principal in my company, to be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable to let him/her to sign over a complicated structural drawing.

I am just thinking that by offering Civil:structural, it gives young EIT's an easier way out. If we, the engineering community wants to raise the bar for the structural engineer, then we should raise it all across the board and make it a standard for everyone.

From Conner SE is saying, it does look like this question has been brought up at NCEES already and I am not the first one asking the same question.


----------



## Lungshen (Dec 16, 2015)

gogo said:


> The place where I work even Assh---- plumbing or electrical engineers routinely stamp structural drawings without even knowing if A36 is the size of their Hole or material spec.


I have seen a mechanical engineer signing fire protection drawing and electrical signing fueling mechanical drawing...when the person who is responsible for signing is out on vacation... they can get away because it doesn't involve life and public safety.

Other discipline signing over structural is a different story when you put other people's life under jeopardy. It is highly unethical and definitely grounds for disciplinary action or revoke of licensure.


----------



## SE_FL (May 1, 2016)

In Florida we have a state statute of only allowing an SE sign drawings for Threshold Buildings. The standard PE can still do simple designs and single family residences/additions. I'm ok with that, if a pool cracks or screen enclosure fails in a hurricane the risk is mainly to the owner or contractor (depending on warranty). By the way, these are also structures that architects fully can sign in Florida. But most architectural rates are higher than ours so they don't get much business from lower income owners.

We are starting to see a shortage of competent SE's due to the difficulty of the exam and a lot of older engineers (that were grandfathered in as Threshold Engineers) are retiring.


----------



## smahurin (May 2, 2016)

I actually think both the PE Civil/Structural and both SE exams are pretty far off the mark.  That's not to say they are easy or hard... I just think they are a terrible representation of what a structural engineer does.  I like the idea of requiring an structural specific exam for licensure to design structures, I just don't think this iteration does a good job at it.

Focusing strictly on the SE exam, I thought it was basically an exercise in finding random and obscure code references that a practicing structural engineer almost never uses.  If you can navigate your codes and find the reference, you win and get the problem right.  If you aren't able to find the obscure code reference, well you have a 1:4 chance at guessing right.  Again, I'm not saying it was easy or hard... just pretty off the mark.  It felt like in an effort to make it difficult they focused on asking questions about obscure code references as many of the common references/eqn's/etc SE's are familiar with. And so the questions are about code references on the very periphery... stuff that SE's just very rarely deal with for the most part.

I realize in a timed exam, there is only so much that can be done.  So I guess my response to Lungshen is sort of on a tangent as well... because I'm not sure the SE in its current iteration should qualify as a "Real Structural Exam".  Difficult, maybe, maybe not.  But "real", I'm not sure I agree with that.

I'm sure others may disagree and thats OK.


----------



## bassplayer45 (May 2, 2016)

There is also the big topic of seismic. If I remember, seismic is not covered on the civil PE structural exam component. It is covered as a sole topic on the structure engineering exam. I know plenty of engineers who do not have their SE that I consider smarter than me and know some of the information better because they have been doing it so long. I got my SE by having 7 years experience and studying my butt off. I know a hell of a lot more now than when I started studying for it. You have to draw the line in the sane somewhere. Some people might say since I have my SE now I can go out and design a cable stay bridge all by myself. I don't recall there being cable stay question on the exam, nor would I claim I am capable of doing it. Experience goes a long way, but legalities and ways to put more liability on the engineers for each specific discipline will eventually be the norm. When it eventually gets to the point where it will be required for all states, I think a lot of people will get grandfathered in based on experience rather than an exam.


----------



## SE_FL (May 2, 2016)

bassplayer45 said:


> There is also the big topic of seismic. If I remember, seismic is not covered on the civil PE structural exam component.


Just an FYI, the NCEES Exam Specifications show the potential for questions on seismic. Just follow the specs like a guidebook. The seismic topics can pop up in a few different places on the spec list (IBC, ASCE, lateral, foundations, ect.) If you practiced or studied any seismic I imagine you would find the answers pretty quickly. If not, you would have to spend valuable time flipping through resources.


----------



## matt267 PE (May 3, 2016)

^ @SE_FL you might want to reword your post.


----------



## kevo_55 (May 3, 2016)

Play nice now.


----------

