EnergizerBunnyAt75 - Engineer Boards Jump to content
Engineer Boards

EnergizerBunnyAt75

Member
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About EnergizerBunnyAt75

  • Rank
    Intern

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Civil/Structural
  • License
    PE
  • Discipline
    Structural

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Texan, I am back. Please see my post on the exam by a guest. I will wrap up some loose ends at home and be ready to go by the end of the coming week, say Saturday or Sunday. I think I will go for both Vertical and Seismic. It does not hurt. Please let me know how you want to set this up.
  2. Before going into the exam topic, I want to say kudos to NCEES for the way they administered the test under these trying times of COVID-19. In Tucson, AZ the venue was very spacious, comfortable, well lit. The proctors also did an excellent job. Coming to the exam itself, I took the vertical only. The morning was good, the afternoon crunched for time. It is not about whether I pass or fail. Overall, I feel the exam is what it ought to be to protect public safety and above all else lives of people. A bad doctor could be killing one patient at a time; a bad structural engineer, c
  3. I am back as I said I would. I took a brief look at the eng-tips thread. My initial impression is that it dwells on too many codes of other countries and not enough on the US codes which is our prime interest. An engineer cannot stand up in a US court and invoke those codes in defense. Also, code making and revising them often has become an industry in itself in the US and code writers are not unfamiliar with at least some of the foreign codes. e.g. after the Kobe earthquake US engineers learnt a lot from the Japanese seismic codes and revised our seismic codes. Australia, New Zealand have ver
  4. Structural engineering is something you may not want to switch to after some years in another sub-set of civil engineering. As CUniverse also points out, you may be better served to look into gaining structural experience. If you are with a DOT now you can try to get a lateral move to their Bridge Design teams. Their are some caveats though. You will then be accepted by most Boards for SE exam Bridges. If you look at the NCEES website you will see the relatively small numbers that take Bridges SE exam. It is a smaller market segment. But if that is your passion, go after it. Also, St
  5. Thank you Texan for your wish. My plan after the exam is to slowly gear up for the April Seismic. I will take full participation in that. But Seismic still doesn’t exist in total isolation from common elements in Vertical. I will stay somewhat connected on Vertical also until December when I will know the exam result. From then on, I would have proposed, NCEES would have disposed as a similar saying goes!
  6. I am taking the buildings vertical in 9 days. If I pass, I will take the lateral in April 2021. If I have to retake, I will do only Vertical again. Yes, I am in either way.
  7. OK dear forum members, thank you for the spirited discussion. I will be happy to return to the forum on 23 October, yes 2020 and pick up where I left. It is not about who is right but about what is the correct thinking behind the Tables. If I fail the exam because of this topic, so be it.
  8. Lb is not zero just because the compression flange is restrained from lateral displacement along the full span. It is the distance between points where both top and bottom flanges are restrained from twisting - the span, say 40 ft in a section with Lp of 10 ft. ....based on...meaning the Mp is the upper limit. BF Reduction factor is applied with Mp as the take off point. If you use 3-6 and 3-10 for a given section, load, span and do moment/load/span conversions, you will arrive at the same result. From 14th: Notes on Table 3-2: For compact W-shapes, when Lb ≤ Lp
  9. 14th - Table 3-6 is based on braced (Lb always < Lp, therefore not considering LTB) beams -.... If so, why are spans many times Lp listed in that table? For the same material properties, Lp is a function of section property only. Lb can be more or less than Lp. Up to Lp, Mp is constant (compact). Beyond that M reduces linearly by BF factor up to Mr at Lr (non-compact). There is no reason for 13th and 14th Values to be different in Section F - Flexure based tables/charts because there is no difference in Specifications between 2005 and 2010 on which 13th and 14th are based. I have
  10. Let me explain my understanding. 3-6 has plastic (yielding) up to Lp, then inelastic LT up to Lr. Up to only Lr, fully braced, you can use 3-6 (or 3-2 if selecting by Zx). LT is not confined to 3-10. 3-6 also has the linear reduction. Up to Lr, unbraced, you can use 3-10 for moments/span. Beyond Lr, one cannot use other than 3-10. Limit is span/depth of 30. My take was based on floors (concrete, steel decking...) bracing the beam. 3-10 is useful when say, concentrated loads are applied (equipment, cranes, .....) in longer unbraced spans. Looked at 13th and 14th editions. The para
  11. For the next two weeks regulate your mornings and afternoons to only one release each. Creature of habit will help. Don’t eat sugary snacks at least during the exam. The body likes to release excess sugar. Hydrate just enough early at lunch break. If you have to just sip as little as possible. Energy drinks won’t help. Good luck.
  12. Verbatim from Manual: The plots include the beam weight, which should be deducted when calculating the maximum uniform load the beam will support. Cb is taken as unity. TDW, I see what you are saying but what threw me off was I was thinking of Moment. Now I see “maximum uniform load the beam will support“. The table is Available Moment vs Unbraced Length. If someone wants to find the maximum uniform load a beam can carry, why would they not use Table 3-6 Maximum Uniform Load instead. There also one has to deduct the beam self weight but it is a deduction from loads. 3-10 is goo
  13. Selecting beams using Table 3-10 requires accounting for the weight of the beam. Cb is 1.0. Simply supported beams, easy enough to take off the moment due to self weight of the beam. But if we are doing a continuous beam, and the maximum moment includes beam’s self weight how does one deal with the reduction? Usually, the maximum positive moment comes not from all bays loaded with floor dead plus live loads.
  14. Nathan, that was my wish too. But whether it is logistically more difficult to do is what I am still not sure how it is actually done. As I also said, in this day of specialization where engineers work on mostly steel and/or concrete and wood especially being a nich segment with many doing wood only, the graders being SMEs is good for applicants as it provides more consistent outcomes.
×
×
  • Create New...