Search results

Thanks I have that as well and will take it with me. I was just wondering if I followed the 341 examples if that is a pretty good strategy

In the AISC 341-05 there are example problems, does anyone thinks these are good examples (and the only examples) or the special systems to have for the exam? Or would others be helpful? If others are needed, are there any sources for fully worked examples of SMF, SCBF, etc?

They still were giving us "credit" for passing the SEI and II by allowing us to take the SEIII. As a matter of fact, they are offering that one more time as well (October 15th for me in WA).. A lot of notice was given if anyone cared to look for the new exams and regulations, nothing was kept...

Yeah, I have that alreadyand was hoping for something more as well. Thanks.

Does anyone know where I can get a SE3 practice exam for Washington (or California)... with the answers for the sample questions would be best?

Although I am sure it is a factor, I don't think revenue has very little to do with the pass rate. I would imagine that they want to keep a high standard of care and competence in the engineering. The last thing we need is to lower our standards further and still not be as respected as we...

Actually, CA does recognize the SEI, but only in order to get your Civil PE. Everything else you said is correct though. Your other option could have been to take the SE3 (it is offered for the last time in October), but I think that dead line is now passed as well.

That is exactly why I am of the opinion that there is no way they are going to change the passing rates so that more people pass. More than likely, they are looking to find a way to cut down the pass rate to be around the 30% mark for both exams. (Say 40% for the gravity portion... similar to...

Personally, I think they will be lower than 40%. The SEI was previously always around 40% so I cannot imagine that the SEI and II (basically) would be higher than it. I fully expect a pass rate of 30%, but perhaps that is just me hoping that the SE designation does not get "watered down" with...

Perhaps, I misunderstood kevo, but my thought was that BOTH had to be checked. That the ASCE 7 was checked for stability and the AISC/FEMA was checked for strength.

That list of books would be very appreciated. Thanks.

I agree, MF's should be checked for both ASCE and AISC equations. And as you said, with computer software many of the code checks are now just a matter of pushing a few buttons (obviously once you have verified that the program does what it says it does... a step many people take too lightly IMO).

I have only spent a few minutes looking into this, so forgive me if this does not make sense, but my thoughts: AISC specifications (whether that is chapter C or Appendix 7) applies an amplification to the loads to check the STRENGTH of the members for the P-Delta (and P-little delta) affects...

I don't touch bridges anymore... I started my career with them, but it's not my "cup of tea". So I switched to buildings and never looked back. I will look into that section and give you my interpretation (that is all codes are anyway, right) when I take a lunch. And I am not too worried...

No that part is not sarcasm... I guess I am just one of those apparently hated people that don't normally have to study (so my wife says anyway).

The "how hard can it be?" was definitely sarcasm. My plan for review is to use the SEAW review course and plan materials accompanied with college text books, college problems, and then a workbook for the California SE III. Then, in October (a few weeks before) I will take the NCEES SE (new...

Any one else taking the SE III this October? This is my first (and only) shot at it, but I have passed the SEI and SEII on my first try so how hard can it be, right? :rolleyes:

Coming from out of state (Kansas) to take the SE III in Washington in October...Is there one location that is easier to get in and out of than the other?