Recent content by rfehr613

I will reach out. The verbiage on their website seems to suggest that all experience necessary for originally obtaining the PE would be required to be submitted. Though I don't see why I couldn't use 4 years at my current employer instead. It still meets NCEES requirements, even if it doesn't...

I received my PE in Maryland in 2016. At the time, the process involved following Maryland-specific criteria for detailing experience, education, references, etc. I've since moved to Pennsylvania and began looking into the requirements for applying for reciprocity in PA. PA directs you to...

Is there not going to be a 2023 survey? It's so hard to get real world data on salaries. I wish this survey was growing more, so there would be more data points.

The term "bridge" can sometimes be broad and include culverts. The feds define a bridge as any above grade crossing that spans 20ft or more, but that's really just a definition created for the national bridge inventory. A 16ft bridge is still a bridge, its just not on the national registry and...

Go to ASCE/SEI meetings and network. Really and civil-structural events is a great place to get your name or you firms name out there.

So i did exactly what you're doing, except I kinda got screwed over by my advisor in the 3+2 program. I went into a 3+2 program at Bloomsburg university of PA (program was with Pennstate engineering). I completed the 3 year portion and applied for PSU but was rejected. Evidently they don't allow...

I just finished comparing the Chapter 11 Fatigue requirements from the LRFD spec to Standard spec (both through 2020 interims), and the codes are virtually identical. They read almost exactly the same, verbatim, and the equations and tabulated values are identical. There are only a handful of...

I've been assigned as urgent task to compare the AASHTO LRFD luminaire & sign structure spec to the Standard spec 6th ed. version. I'm focusing mostly on fatigue, as that typically controls the design of sign structures. I can also avoid the load factor differences when just comparing the...

We'll see how it goes tomorrow Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

This is what I'm saying. Look at these examples... they're terrible. I don't have a lot of faith in the real test being much better. Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I got out of bed just to take a picture of this for you. I haven't even reviewed it myself. Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Ok, well that is a horribly worded question then. It reads as both having said deceleration rate, not one of them. I hope the real test isn't this much of a disaster. Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

To clarify though, this was only for one of my references. My first job and current job went through the traditional reference method. It was only my second job that required work examples. Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yup. It's an option... in Maryland at least. Obviously not the first option one should choose, but an option for sure. I don't know if it only applies to people like me who can't get their references to sign off or if anyone can do it right off the bat. Probably the former. It's written...

Sorry, the board seems to have cut off my post. Maybe they don't like the greater than and less than signs? Or greater than or equal to? Anyway, what i was trying to say is that there appears to be two different cases in the CERM. Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk