SEII

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Thanks

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

Thoughts?

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

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?

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

Click to expand...

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, & 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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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)