# SE II



## Shaker-PE (Mar 7, 2009)

For part d, column size determination.... I'm guessing they chose 0.7 for a k value? Top fixed and bottom pinned with L of 14.5 feet, maybe. Would anyone else be able to determine from the diagram that k actually equals 0.7? I'm confused.

I think there's other errors in that part, but I'm not sure I'd use 0.7 to determine a column size. I guess I'd use 1.0


----------



## McEngr (Mar 9, 2009)

Shaker-PE said:


> For part d, column size determination.... I'm guessing they chose 0.7 for a k value? Top fixed and bottom pinned with L of 14.5 feet, maybe. Would anyone else be able to determine from the diagram that k actually equals 0.7? I'm confused.
> I think there's other errors in that part, but I'm not sure I'd use 0.7 to determine a column size. I guess I'd use 1.0


Shaker, do work in the telecommunications sector of structural engineering? I'll see about answering your question at lunch.


----------



## Shaker-PE (Mar 9, 2009)

-yeah, cell towers and rooftop sites... they're everywhere.

i haven't looked at that problem lately, i just moved on to other things that i could decipher.

the ncees problem manual doesn't go into too much depth about explanation.

however i think a problem like this one will likely be on the test.


----------



## ARLORD (Mar 11, 2009)

Shaker-PE said:


> For part d, column size determination.... I'm guessing they chose 0.7 for a k value? Top fixed and bottom pinned with L of 14.5 feet, maybe. Would anyone else be able to determine from the diagram that k actually equals 0.7? I'm confused.
> I think there's other errors in that part, but I'm not sure I'd use 0.7 to determine a column size. I guess I'd use 1.0



Yes, k=1, braced both directions. See the errata, however, they changed everything:

http://www.ncees.org/exams/study_materials...l_II_errata.pdf


----------



## Shaker-PE (Mar 12, 2009)

ARLORD said:


> Yes, k=1, braced both directions. See the errata, however, they changed everything:
> http://www.ncees.org/exams/study_materials...l_II_errata.pdf



Ahh, yes, k = 1 for sure. Embarrassing mistake, I was in the ASD column of Table 4-4 not the LRFD one.

The sample test has a few mistakes and it's hard to know which parts to trust sometimes.

But thanks for the reassurance, I appreciate it.


----------



## ARLORD (Mar 12, 2009)

Shaker-PE said:


> Ahh, yes, k = 1 for sure. Embarrassing mistake, I was in the ASD column of Table 4-4 not the LRFD one.
> The sample test has a few mistakes and it's hard to know which parts to trust sometimes.
> 
> But thanks for the reassurance, I appreciate it.


Yes, there are a lot of errors in some of the reference materials. I would focus more on the method and less on the numbers, however finding their mistakes is good practice.


----------



## MOOK (Mar 22, 2009)

What about problem 460?? I did not find any errata for it. I feel there are many errors in the solution.


----------

