ERRATA - Goswami's Practice Exams (New)

[thebettersmith]

Goswami Depth Prob 404 - (Water Resources) - how is it possible to relate concentration of micrograms per liter to a flowrate in cfs - something dosen't seem right here.. shouldn't we be converting MGD to CFS to flow rates to liters per second since the contamination levels are given in micrograms per liter?? The units don't cancel as you have the 3.094x term where 3.094 represents CFS at the plant.

 

[thebettersmith]

.. I could be just losing it.

 

[civilized_naah]

Goswami Depth Prob 404 - (Water Resources) - how is it possible to relate concentration of micrograms per liter to a flowrate in cfs - something dosen't seem right here.. shouldn't we be converting MGD to CFS to flow rates to liters per second since the contamination levels are given in micrograms per liter?? The units don't cancel as you have the 3.094x term where 3.094 represents CFS at the plant.

[Q1(cfs) x conc1 (g/L) + Q2(cfs) x conc2 (g/L)]

---------------------------------------------------------- = average conc (g/L)

Q1(cfs) + Q2(cfs)

Units work, what's the problem?

 

[thebettersmith]

you're right.. a long day

 

[thebettersmith]

delta Z for Pump Problem 405 (Depth) on page 106 uses 70' as delta Z - should be 80'

 

[Jayman_PE]

Good catch. Thanks!

 

[civilized_naah]

delta Z for Pump Problem 405 (Depth) on page 106 uses 70' as delta Z - should be 80'

Where? On which page is the 70 ft used?

 

[thebettersmith]

Good catch. Thanks!

You are not alone ([email protected]) live in MD - we can talk about exam - trepedation (sp) is building but you are not alone.. you sound prepared.. humility is yet the first bud of victory. Rudy

 

[thebettersmith]

Jayman - I am a Christian, like you.

Good catch. Thanks!

 

[civilized_naah]

delta Z for Pump Problem 405 (Depth) on page 106 uses 70' as delta Z - should be 80'

Where? On which page is the 70 ft used?

Where is the delta Z = 70 ft? Did not see it ...

 

[ptatohed]

delta Z for Pump Problem 405 (Depth) on page 106 uses 70' as delta Z - should be 80'

Where? On which page is the 70 ft used?

Where is the delta Z = 70 ft? Did not see it ...

^^^

c_n takes this very personally.

 

[niles22]

Folks, so theres still no official errata for this book?

 

[Jayman_PE]

You're reading it.

 

[Jayman_PE]

ERRATA

Page 195, Problem 36. Should be 243% increase. (not 143%). Unless I'm mistaken.

You are mistaken. If the before and after values had been equal and the ratio had been 1.00, would the % increase be 100%? OK.

Page 37, Problem 120. A lousy question - finding the general relationship for critical velocity/depth for a triangular section. I would like to see if most Civil Hydraulic Professors can solve this inside of 6 minutes? I post this as an Errata because it should be left out of the question set. Maybe a good question for the PM exam, but not AM. Again, 6 minutes.

I believe ptatohed has answered this. I answered back. Move problem to PM Transpo.

Page 212, Problem 123. I get V = 6.18 ft/sec. I think Goswami's answer (7.15) works too. Might be a bad coincidence of two intersecting solutions.

V = 6.18 ft/sec doesn’t fit the equation. Depends what version you are reading.

Page 40, Problem 126. Did the Author take time to read the NCEES Breadth syllabus for Transportation? Nowhere do I see traffic counts, studies, of any kind. Therefore, this should be removed from the AM and placed in the Transpo PM problem set.

Every page of the official syllabus has the following fine print – The knowledge areas specified as examples of kinds of knowledge are not exclusive or exhaustive categories. Are you a friend of Goswami and/or relative? I don't work on potential. Only the facts are important.

If we follow your logic then let's just add specs from the Green Book into the AM and every PM depth even though it's not a listed reference for anyone other than Transportation. In doing so we'll add stuff like traffic counts and studies. Wrong.

Page 42, Problem 132. See previous statement. Wasted ink.

See previous statement. See previous statement.

Page 46, Problem 140. Poorly written. Not clear what we are asked to find: net cost of what? Crashing Schedule option vs. Normal Schedulle?

Agreed. The language could definitely have been clearer. As solved, the word ‘net’ implies cost + bonus – penalties for crashing.

I don't care how he/his graduate student solved it. After reading the problem I immediately discounted it.

 

[civilized_naah]

You need to calm down for the test! If you keep calm, this test is easy.

 

[terzaghi83]

This book has way too many errors.

 

[civilized_naah]

There has yet to be ONE legitimate ERROR named in this string

 

[terzaghi83]

The author/ publisher didn't waste their time properly reviewing the book. I'm not going to waste my time doing the editor's job.

 

[terzaghi83]

I've found several in the geotech depth module

 

[terzaghi83]

problem 304- error in calculation of Ka, problem 315-0 error in calculating depth from bottom 2/3 of pile length to middle of clay layer being compressed, problem 337- error- shouldn't square y 1 and y2 terms in solution, problem 339- error- shouldn't us Ca for group pile skin friciton (just use cohesion, no alpha reduction like with single pile).

I think there were a couple more as well, but the above shows that 10% of the geotech solutions are wrong. This is not helpful at all when trying to prepare for an exam!