# SEII



## cdhanners (Jun 23, 2006)

I am now thinking of taking the SEII, have anyone here taken it brfore? I want to get the MLE title.


----------



## Cinic (Jun 24, 2006)

Took it and passed in April 05. Very difficult, not impossible.

You need to know everything: wood, masonry, concrete, steel, wind, seismic, rigid diaphragms, seismic distribution, etc.

I was pretty weak in concrete and my steel isn't the best, but I got through it.


----------



## rdbse (Nov 14, 2006)

Today I sent in my application to take the SE II exam in April. I might regret this in a couple of months, as I am usually a sucker for punishment.

I keep hanging around this forum hoping more structural guys will come along who can give some support. So anyone else taking it, or any advice from those who have been through the exam?


----------



## petermcc (Nov 15, 2006)

Once I have my SE1 results, I might consider SEII, however my wife may have me committed...... :tone:


----------



## scottiesei (Nov 15, 2006)

I would consider taking it as well. I am going back to finish my MSCE first. I got about half way done before I started studying for the PE Exam and took a break from it. I think some light studying for a year or two would be a nice change. Plus the courses that I have left are pretty tuned towards testing any. I.E: advanced steel, masonry and timber, etc.


----------



## seII (Dec 4, 2006)

Which states offer SEII? Can someone give me the whole list?

Thanks


----------



## McEngr (Dec 11, 2006)

Can someone please recommend a good study resource for this exam? I heard that the Kaplan stuff is good.

Thoughts?


----------



## scottiesei (Dec 11, 2006)

I read that the NCEES practice tests were pretty good as well.


----------



## rdbse (Dec 11, 2006)

My main focus will be seismic provisions for various materials and indeterminate analysis. I plan to use the Kaplan review books, the NCEES practice exam, and various text books. I may go through the 246 solved problem, and attempt the problems using IBC/ASCE 7.

Has anyone found a seismic review book that uses ASD for steel and masonry?


----------



## McEngr (Dec 12, 2006)

> Has anyone found a seismic review book that uses ASD for steel and masonry?


_Seismic and Wind Forces Structural Design Examples_ by Alan Williams is an excellent text. It goes through using the connection/critical component design seismic load combinations (16-19 and 16-20 of IBC 2003) for Steel ASD. I think that it's not permissible to use masonry ASD for seismic design in categories D, E, &amp; F, but that's all located in ACI 530-02. It's outlined pretty clearly. I haven't gone that far into this text, but I'm sure it covers it. I primarily design low-rise steel buildings.

McEngr


----------



## rdbse (Dec 12, 2006)

Are you sure about the limit of ASD for seismic design? As far as I know, ASD can be used for all seismic design categories, but for the special seismic load combinations you use the strength requirements (ACI 530, 2.1.3.3) to convert to strength design.


----------



## rdbse (Dec 12, 2006)

ACI 530 Commentary Section 1.13.2 states the empirical masonry design is not permitted to be used in seismic design categories D, E, and F. It states nothing about ASD except converting to strength design where required by load cases as I have mentioned in my previous post.

By the way, the SEII test is based on ASD masonry design except for slender walls.


----------



## McEngr (Dec 12, 2006)

> Are you sure about the limit of ASD for seismic design?  As far as I know, ASD can be used for all seismic design categories, but for the special seismic load combinations you use the strength requirements (ACI 530, 2.1.3.3) to convert to strength design.


Yes you are right. rdbse, I remember you asking these questions a long time ago... or at least you contributed to the thread on the "other" forum. That place was good for a while, but it's becoming obsolete.

Sorry for the confusion... I just reviewed my SERM, BCRMS, and the afforementioned text (written by the same author as the SERM - Alan Williams), and he uses strength design for the entire section when discussing bearing walls, bearing/shear walls, and shearwalls in conjunction with special moment frames. Therefore, I'd follow what you understand from the BCRMS from section 1.13.

One thing that I'm unsure about, and perhaps you can explain to me: For connection design for high seismic categories, is it still permissible to use ASD with the overstrength factor for ASD? Is so, then how does one come up with an allowable stress increase for components. In IBC 2000, it was a 1.7 allowable stress increase combined with the overstrength factor, which overcomplicated things, but wasn't nearly as conservative as it is now, because that was taken out of the text in IBC 2003. Do you follow what I'm saying? I understand this very well for structural steel, but it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to masonry.

Thanks,

McEngr


----------



## McEngr (Dec 12, 2006)

> By the way, the SEII test is based on ASD masonry design except for slender walls.


rdbse, I will not bet on it, but I doubt that we will see a special seismic load combination for masonry come up on the SE II. What do you think?

McEngr


----------



## rdbse (Dec 13, 2006)

I'm not sure if special seismic loads will be on the exam, since the sample exam does not go into that much detail.

Converting ASD to strength design for the special seismic load combinations with overstrength factors varies by code. IBC 2003 simplified design allows an allowable stress increase of 1.7, while ASCE 7-02 allows an allowable stress increas of 1.2. AISC seismic provisions allows an allowable stress increase of 1.7 and has a reduction factor based on shear, tension, flexure, etc. ACI 530 allows for an allowable stress increase of 2.5 and also has reduction factors. I suspect that the model codes IBC/ASCE control.

Regardless, this can be very confusing, and I hope the next code cycle makes this a lot easier.


----------



## McEngr (Dec 13, 2006)

> Converting ASD to strength design for the special seismic load combinations with overstrength factors varies by code. IBC 2003 simplified design allows an allowable stress increase of 1.7, while ASCE 7-02 allows an allowable stress increas of 1.2. AISC seismic provisions allows an allowable stress increase of 1.7 and has a reduction factor based on shear, tension, flexure, etc. ACI 530 allows for an allowable stress increase of 2.5 and also has reduction factors. I suspect that the model codes IBC/ASCE control.
> Regardless, this can be very confusing, and I hope the next code cycle makes this a lot easier.


Confusing is right. Could you stear me as to wear you found the 2.5 allowable stress increase in the BCRMS?

Thanks.

Also, my boss has an interpretation that for Steel Design in IBC 2003, one can use a 1.7*0.75=1.275 for an allowable stress increase. He assumes that a phi-factor (aka strength reduction factor) can be assumed from (part III I think it is?) of the ASCE seismic provisions. I disagree and think it should be a 1.2 from ASCE seismic commentary without any reduction factors. It seems unconservative, but nonetheless, we're using it. We have load combinations from IBC 2003 that look like this:

1.20 (self-weight+collateral+deadload) + 0.20 (LL) + Eh

dividing by 1.275 gives us the following:

0.94 (self-weight+collateral+deadload) + 0.16 (LL) + 0.78Eh

I don't agree with the 0.75, but he swears by it and says that he understands the seismic provisions from 341-02 better than me. :whatever: Because I'm not quite a PE until a couple weeks  , I can't have a voice in the matter. He's a real jerk, and won't listen. He's also from a foreign country where his English is like a third language, but I'll digress for now...

Also, you never addressed the fact that IBC 2003 doesn't discuss an allowable stress increase of 1.7. This was changed from 2000 to 2003, correct? Since IBC 2003 refers to the ASCE moreso in '03 than in '00, the allowable increase is left up to ASCE in my opinion. What do you think?

This may entail a discussion where we have to dive into the codes a lot more.


----------



## McEngr (Dec 13, 2006)

Oh yeah... another thing...

I know for a fact that my boss doesn't understand the commentary of ASCE and from 341-02 because we currently don't account for vertical seismic effects. He's a UBC guy (Lindeburgh's book on seismic entails that Ev is not required for UBC), and his english isn't very good, so I think that has something to do with it.

God, I need to get out of metal buildings and into a decent consulting office!!!!! :suicide:

~ps~ I'm sure that you know this: Ev = 0.2*Sds*DL


----------



## rdbse (Dec 13, 2006)

IBC 2003 allows for an allowable stress increase of 1.7 when using ASD with special seismic load combinations (Section 1617.1.1.2). You cannot combine this with any other permitted increases when using ASD. This is used for IBC simplified seismic design as it states in the heading Section 1617.1.1.

Most buildings we design require the ELF procedure in ASCE, so we use an allowable stress increase of 1.2 with no reduction factor.

ACI 530-02 Section 2.1.3.3.2 addresses the 2.5 increase for converting masonry allowable stress to strength design.


----------



## McEngr (Dec 13, 2006)

> IBC 2003 allows for an allowable stress increase of 1.7 when using ASD with special seismic load combinations (Section 1617.1.1.2).? You cannot combine this with any other permitted increases when using ASD.? This is used for IBC simplified seismic design as it states in the heading Section 1617.1.1.
> Most buildings we design require the ELF procedure in ASCE, so we use an allowable stress increase of 1.2 with no reduction factor.
> 
> ACI 530-02 Section 2.1.3.3.2 addresses the 2.5 increase for converting masonry allowable stress to strength design.


rdbse,

I'm doubting that you see much seismic-heavy projects where you work? No disrespect, it's just that the simplified method is pretty conservative.

On the west-coast, it's much better to use the ELF with the special load combos. From what I know, the 1.7 can't be applied unless it's simplified. Maybe I'm missing something? Also, the simplified method is only allowed to be used in USE GROUP I and with many limitations.

McEngr


----------



## McEngr (Dec 13, 2006)

> Most buildings we design require the ELF procedure in ASCE, so we use an allowable stress increase of 1.2 with no reduction factor.


I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS!!! Sorry for the all caps, but my boss treats me like an idiot because I don't agree with him on the afforementioned method for designing in the AISC 341-02. This is clear in the commentary of ASCE, and I've documented Alan Williams' book entitled _Seismic and Wind Forces__: Structural Design Examples_ and he still will not address it. He's going to be the department manager in the future, and he's sorely lacking in understanding the concepts for seismic code. Perhaps down the road I will see it his way, but I can't help but wonder what other consulting firms think when they see our load combinations in our calculations. (sigh)


----------



## rdbse (Dec 14, 2006)

McEngr,

Actually there are two major seismic areas in the southeast, one around Memphis and the other around Charleston. Plus we do lots of schools, hospitals, and other essential facilities that do not qualify for the simpified procedure. If I have a project that does qualify as simplified, I still use ELF since it is more familiar to me.


----------



## McEngr (Dec 14, 2006)

> McEngr,Actually there are two major seismic areas in the southeast, one around Memphis and the other around Charleston. Plus we do lots of schools, hospitals, and other essential facilities that do not qualify for the simpified procedure. If I have a project that does qualify as simplified, I still use ELF since it is more familiar to me.


Looking back at my previous posts, I sound a little condecending(sp?). Sorry 'bout that. Thanks for the tips!


----------



## 3gorgesdam (Jan 2, 2007)

Can we make this an official thread for SE II and III. I don't have much knowledge about these two ex :brick: ams. Any information would be highly appreciated. I heard one has to wait for three years after PE in order to take SE II and III. It is two days exam. I refer to Washington State.

As far as review materials, how does IBC 2006 and all that fit in this picture? IF you prepare too earlier, would that hurt you not following the latest codes? What version of ASCE 7 to be used then? Too much unknowns.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2007)

> Too much unknowns.


Sounds like you don't have enough degrees of freedom 

:jk:

JR


----------



## rdbse (Jan 3, 2007)

NCEES has indicated that the IBC2003/ASCE 7-02 standards will remain through Oct 2007 (April 2008 will cover IBC2006/ASCE 7-05).

http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe...n_standards.pdf


----------



## McEngr (Jan 3, 2007)

> NCEES has indicated that the IBC2003/ASCE 7-02 standards will remain through Oct 2007 (April 2008 will cover IBC2006/ASCE 7-05).
> 
> http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe...n_standards.pdf


rdbse,

Did you find that the SE II was more difficult than the SE I? I plan on buying the ncees sample exam, but I've yet to shell out the dough because of the Holidays.

McEngr


----------



## rdbse (Jan 3, 2007)

McEngr,

I am taking SEII in April, so I am starting the study/review process. What did you decide on the cosulting position?

It would be great to keep this thread going. Anyone else set to take it in April?


----------



## McEngr (Jan 3, 2007)

> McEngr,
> I am taking SEII in April, so I am starting the study/review process. What did you decide on the cosulting position?
> 
> It would be great to keep this thread going. Anyone else set to take it in April?


Is it too late to sign up for it for April? If so, then I'll take the SE II in October. I just found out that I passed the Civil here in Oregon. They don't even recognize the SE I, so I wanted to at least get the PE credentials out of the way.


----------



## Mike1144 (Jan 3, 2007)

> > NCEES has indicated that the IBC2003/ASCE 7-02 standards will remain  through Oct 2007 (April 2008 will cover IBC2006/ASCE 7-05).
> >
> > http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe...n_standards.pdf
> 
> ...


I have an older SEII sample exam. It's pretty basic stuff, just really involved. One question involves the design of a splice for a steel bridge beam. The sample exam only has like 6 problems in it.

I also have the 246 Solved Problems from "the other board", and a lot of those problems seem to be on par with the SEII sample exam. Although they all looked like they were solved in the mid to late 90's.

I'll get a PhD in particle physics before I even think about the SEII.


----------



## McEngr (Jan 3, 2007)

Mike,

Why would you not want the SE II? I've heard through the grapevine that it's easier than the SE I, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want it... especially on the West Coast where it means a whole lot.


----------



## andrewd (Jan 3, 2007)

I took the SEII exam in October 2005 and the SEI exam in April 2006. I have passed both exams. I would have to say that the SEI exam is harder. I say this for several reasons. I will also add that I obtained my PE by taking the Civil exam in October 1991 when the PE exam consisted on 8 essay problems. So I sat for the SEI &amp; II exams after a 15 year period. :true:

Back to the SEI &amp; II exams. The SEI covers so many topics it's hard to study all possible areas. Also, there are numerous questions that deal with obscure code provisions. To me the other big factor is that you have to know some bridge stuff to pass. Theoretically, you could pass without answering any bridge problems correctly, but you have to get about 85% of the remaining problems correct. If you do buildings only like me, you need to learn a little bridge design to have a better chance since about 20 to 25% of the test is bridge.

I think the SEII is easier because you must choose either building or bridge problems exclusively, so you can concentrate on buildings only. In addition, you only have four problems in the morning and four in the afternoon. You have more time to delve into each problem. If you do consulting design work, these problems will be similar to your approach to office design, however, you must be able to work with any materials..., concrete, masonry, wood, steel, precast.


----------



## scottiesei (Jan 4, 2007)

I don't know how you could take the SEII before the SEI. FWIW, the guy next to me in October was taking the SEII. He was not happy. I do not know how well he prepared but he seemed pretty sharp. This year I am finishing up my Masters. I will then make the decision whether or not I take the SEII.


----------



## petermcc (Jan 4, 2007)

I was thinking of taking the SEII, but I think my wife might divorce me on the grounds of insanity!! :tone:


----------



## Mike1144 (Jan 4, 2007)

The SE2 won't do me any good at this point. Here in Texas I'm already a PE just passing the SE1. To be a California PE I'd have to sit for the Civil exam, in California.

Plus my structural experience is pretty low. I mean, I've spent the last 6 years designing structural connections but nothing that comes close to an entire structure. I couldn't even ethically design a tool shed. My experience is too narrow. I'm good at what I do, I just don't do a lot of different things.


----------



## McEngr (Jan 4, 2007)

> I don't know how you could take the SEII before the SEI. FWIW, the guy next to me in October was taking the SEII. He was not happy. I do not know how well he prepared but he seemed pretty sharp. This year I am finishing up my Masters. I will then make the decision whether or not I take the SEII.


Scottie,

In Oregon and Washington, you do not have to sit for the SE I. It's not recognized. The Civil, SE II, and Washington SE III is the only thing that will get you the coveted West-Coast SE license. The SE license is enforced all across the West Coast cities. I, for one, couldn't design a hospital because the SE is required.

Just an FYI... B)

McEngr


----------



## McEngr (Jan 4, 2007)

> I, for one, couldn't design a hospital because the SE is required.


Correction: I couldn't STAMP a hospital structural project without the SE license.


----------



## scottiesei (Jan 4, 2007)

So why would one go back to tkae the SEI after taking and passing the SEII?


----------



## McEngr (Jan 4, 2007)

> So why would one go back to tkae the SEI after taking and passing the SEII?


Um... sorry if I left you with that impression. That wouldn't make sense. On the west coast, it's Civil + Str II + Str III to get your SE, at least in Oregon and Washington, that's the case.

I plan on getting my SE in California through the joint reciprocity of the Washington/California SE III exam. I could probably design jobs with just the CE requiring the additional Seismic and Surveying exams, but I'd rather avoid that since I want the SE anyways.


----------



## McEngr (Jan 4, 2007)

> I don't know how you could take the SEII before the SEI. FWIW, the guy next to me in October was taking the SEII. He was not happy. I do not know how well he prepared but he seemed pretty sharp. This year I am finishing up my Masters. I will then make the decision whether or not I take the SEII.


Good luck with your MS, Scottie.


----------



## kevo_55 (Jan 4, 2007)

McEngr,

The Washington State route is the easiest way to get a CA SE license. "oldtimer"


----------



## andrewd (Jan 4, 2007)

New York will allow you to sit for the SE II exam after having passed either the Civil exam or the SE I exam. When I took my PE exam in 1991 the SE I exam did not exist so I had a Civil PE. I was trying to get my SE license in Illinois and some western states. I figured, take the SE II exam first, thinking it was harder, figuring if I don't pass the SE II what's the sense of going back to take the SE I. So all in all I have passed three PE exams. :dunno:


----------



## 3gorgesdam (Jan 7, 2007)

Is this right that SEIII only for Washington State and Oregon State? SEII is national, how about SE III?


----------



## McEngr (Jan 7, 2007)

> Is this right that SEIII only for Washington State and Oregon State? SEII is national, how about SE III?


SE III is only a west coast thing. CA, OR, and WA all require it for the SE nowadays...


----------



## 3gorgesdam (Jan 8, 2007)

> > Is this right that SEIII only for Washington State and Oregon State? SEII is national, how about SE III?
> 
> 
> SE III is only a west coast thing. CA, OR, and WA all require it for the SE nowadays...


Thanks McEngr. I don't see any review material for SE III any where though.


----------



## McEngr (Jan 8, 2007)

> > > Is this right that SEIII only for Washington State and Oregon State? SEII is national, how about SE III?
> >
> >
> > SE III is only a west coast thing. CA, OR, and WA all require it for the SE nowadays...
> ...


I think it's located at the Washington State Board's website. I'll look into it and edit this message if I find it.


----------



## 3gorgesdam (Jan 8, 2007)

I appreciated McEngr. Seems that SE II and SEIII are much bigger hurdles comparing to PE. A friend of mine just passed both SE II and SE III this October. He took both exams this time, two 8 hours. : USA :


----------



## McEngr (Jan 11, 2007)

> I appreciated McEngr. Seems that SE II and SEIII are much bigger hurdles comparing to PE. A friend of mine just passed both SE II and SE III this October. He took both exams this time, two 8 hours. : USA :


http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/engineersla...seiiimatrix.pdf

I received this from an e-mail at the WA state board.


----------

