# Warning to Any one Using Kaplan Review books by Alan Willams



## keiwong (Apr 4, 2013)

Everyone who is preparing for the April 12th and 13th sitting of the 16 Hour Structural exam please be advised that the Kaplan Structural Engineering PE Licence Review Problems and Solutions 8th ed. and the Civil &amp; structural Engineering Seismic Design Review for the PE exam 7th ed both by Alan Willams and bolth sold together by Kaplan as a package have numerous errors. I am not just talking about small typos but glarring errors that could turn an "Acceptable" answer to a "Needs improvement" or knock a "needs improvement" down to an "unaccceptable". What is very distressing is that there is even instances where information in one of these texts is refuted in the second text.

Take for example EX 4.5 in Civil &amp; structural Engineering Seismic Design Review for the PE exam 7th ed , The drag force diagram in exibit 23 is just plain incorrect since the drag force diagram should be drawn as the area under the net shear curve. The exact same problem shows up in Structural Engineering PE Licence Review Problems and Solutions 8th ed. as example 2.8. the drag force diagram shown in exibit 2.8a is STILL wrong and wrong the same way. Now look at the beam splice component of this problem shown in the two different texts, in the version where it is Ex.4.5 the author neglects to use the overstrength factor. This is contrary to what is called for in ASCE 7 12.10.2.1 which explicicitly states that all collector elements and their connectors must use the Overstrength factor case. However in the text where it is example 2.8 the author correctly uses the over strength factor for the beam splice requirement. He gets even more confusing as he proceeds to use the overstrenth factor to design the brace it self but does not do so in the text where this same problem is Ex 3.5.

This is just one of the numerous issues I have encountered with these texts and I am extremely dissatasfied with Kaplan and Alan Willams and I am not sure who is more to blame. On one hand Alan Willams wrote these crappy books but on the other it seems like Kaplan dosen't hire editors. Seriously how do you have two books written by the same guy sold as a package deal by the same company which publishes and edits both of them AND still have issues with contradictory information. Also lets just forget all about the fact that these texts repeat 75-80 percent of their content so right there Kaplan sold almost twice the number of books right off the bat.


----------



## McEngr (Apr 4, 2013)

keiwong: 12.10 also says Omega can be omitted for light frame construction. Is this the case for that problem?


----------



## keiwong (Apr 4, 2013)

McEngr said:


> keiwong: 12.10 also says Omega can be omitted for light frame construction. Is this the case for that problem?


I seriously doubt a braced frame would be considered a light frame as those are normally constructed out of wood ir cold form. And like I said this problem was reproduced in a second source by the same guy published by the same company and the overstrength factor is used there. That not withstanding there are other errors such as the drag strut diagram


----------



## kevo_55 (Apr 4, 2013)

Light frames = wood or light gauge steel shear walls.


----------



## keiwong (Apr 4, 2013)

kevo_55 said:


> Light frames = wood or light gauge steel shear walls.


That is EXACTLY my point! Alan Willams's books are little better than garbage. They claim to be "to code" but there are so many errors that you pretty much have to go through each and every one of his code references and to ensure that everything is alright. I guess thats a good way to prepare is when you know your sources are unreliable and have to do extra digging for everything. Kaplan and Alan Willams can go to hell... PPI and Lindburg all the Way!


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 6, 2013)

Good to know, I went PPI from the start and have never looked back. Glad to know I went down the right road.


----------



## keiwong (Apr 6, 2013)

tehmightypirate said:


> Good to know, I went PPI from the start and have never looked back. Glad to know I went down the right road.


What set of PPI materials did you get? The Kaplan isn't totally useless as it forced me to dig through each and every code to the point where I feel real comfortable with the methodology. On another note I think Alan Willams is a scumbag, he writes for PPI too and uses alot of the same examples he uses in his PPI book those are marginally better because PPI does a better job editing.


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 6, 2013)

Well, I have Alan Williams' Structural Engineering Reference Manual, 6th edition. I also have C. Dale Buckner's Structural Engineering Solved Problems, 5th edition. Both are published by PPI.

I haven't really gone through absolutely every problem as I focused about half on working out problems with the books and the other half on reading through problems and making sure I understood the material. So, with that, I found both to be good preparation material and haven't found many obvious errors. Buckner's book had some minor errors, a few moderate errors, and definitely took problems to the extreme. I also found that Buckner tends to take problems in a way that differs from how I typically would. Finally, the problems in Buckners book are extreme in that you would NEVER be able to solve many of them in an hour but they really get you thinking. I went nuts learning moment distribution because of that book.

For Alan Williams' SERM I really like this book. I have hardly gone though any the examples as I used it like it's supposed to be, a reference book. In this regard it's very nicely set up and will definitely be one of my main resources during the test. Especially for making sure I checked all the various requirements and referenced everything I need to. Overall I would rate both books quite high.


----------



## keiwong (Apr 6, 2013)

I have an older version of the buckner book and you are correct some of those problems are something else. But seriously though I am almost certain what ever steel problem that shows up on the Friday portion would most likely be heavily table based. I say this because if it is not I would be a nightmare to grade especially since LRFD and ASD may be used.


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 6, 2013)

Additional details:

You can look on Amazon for other peoples reviews of the books. Apparently the steel section of Alan Williams' SERM is riddled with mistakes but I haven't ever looked at that section. AISC Steel Manual and the CD examples (printed out and bound...wow that was a lot of printing) are more than sufficient. Also, note that I'm only taking vertical next week. I haven't bothered checking any lateral stuff and, based on the size of the chapter on lateral I feel the SERM is woefully inadequate.

The errata on the PPI website is extremely useful for finding the problems they did make. It's mostly just typos that they have listed but it clearly shows that they value their editing.


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 6, 2013)

keiwong said:


> I have an older version of the buckner book and you are correct some of those problems are something else. But seriously though I am almost certain what ever steel problem that shows up on the Friday portion would most likely be heavily table based. I say this because if it is not I would be a nightmare to grade especially since LRFD and ASD may be used.




Couldn't agree more. I imagine seeing a column on there or perhaps a coped beam requiring a shear connection. Something like that which takes forever to do by hand but can be done in minutes with the manual's tables. Watch those footnotes though and make sure you read the preface section for each table to find out what is will and will not check for you.


----------



## keiwong (Apr 6, 2013)

If you dont mind ne asking, where are you going to take the test? I am in texas


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 6, 2013)

Maine. I'm only taking the 1st part this time round. As long as I can complete the afternoon portion quickly I'm not worried.

If you want to discuss test strategy or other things send me a PM and we can work out a skype call or something.


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 6, 2013)

Oh, wait, are there actually PMs on this forum? Oh well, either way, let me know if you want to discuss items further in a setting that's easier to use than a forum.


----------



## keiwong (Apr 7, 2013)

Forum is best for me, just let me know what is a good time for you


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Apr 7, 2013)

Well it says there's a chat on this forum but I can't seem to access it. Can you? I just don't want to fill up this topic with a back-and-forth discussion.

How about this. I've created a topic here that we can all fill up and anyone else can chime in. I'll be around all day (studying) but maybe something like 5 PM EST (4 PM CST) we can get on there and just go nuts. Sound good?


----------

