PPI's 16-Hour Structural Engineering (SE) Practice Exam for Buildings

[ItzmeJ0e]

Author of PPI’s 16-hour SE Practice Exam for Buildings here. I’m working on writing an update to the book. I’d love to get feedback from those that have taken the exam and used the book as part of their preparation. Primarily I’m updating the questions and solutions for the new reference design standards that go into effect for the April 2015 exam, but if anyone has other suggestions for how to make the book more useful, I’m all ears.

Without going into specifics about exam questions you saw, any thoughts on the following are greatly appreciated:

-Were the types of question in the practice exam consistent with what you saw on the exam?

-Was the overall difficulty and length of the practice exam consistent with the actual exam?

-Any questions you thought were bad (misleading, unfair, inaccurate) that should be rewritten or replaced?

-Any major topic areas that weren’t covered in the practice exam that should have been?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[Agostage]

I would say the questions you've provided are pretty close in content and difficulty. I think you could add more seismic related steel design that pertains to the nuances in the provisions that end up being important, like expected yield strengths, protected zones, collector amplifiers etc. I would also sneak in some building irregularity in a couple problems to test awareness. I think your solutions are good but I suppose more detail is always better. Sometimes it helps to have commentary within the solution that highlights what is really important and why as opposed to simply giving the correct answer.

 

[DaveEng]

I thought the test was very helpful and the questions seemed to be a little more difficult than exam questions (which is a good thing in my opinion) and I had a tough time finishing the problems within 4 hours. I probably did the test two or three times just for practice and repetition and I know there were a few nuance things that I learned that showed up on the actual test. Its been 3 months or so since my head has been in it so its difficult to say what things could be improved but as I study for lateral (again) next year I will provide feedback on this thread.

 

[ItzmeJ0e]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Thanks for the feedback.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Agostage, I have tried to incorporate your suggested into the revision for the next edition.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Unfortunately, PPI is telling me that the new edition won't be published until around May, so not in time for the April exam. I think the current edition should still be helpful to those preparing for the exam. I can tell you from going through all the questions that most of the code-related changes are minor and primarily organizational.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]That said, here are some of the key changes you should be aware of:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]-The wind provisions in ASCE 7-10 have been completely reorganized. Table C26.1-1 in ASCE 7-10 provides a handy cross-reference of the applicable sections between ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]-The wind speeds in ASCE 7-10 are now calibrated to provide strength-based wind pressures. Calculated wind pressures typically get a load factor of 1.0 for LRFD and 0.6 for ASD.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]-Also in ASCE 7-10, the risk categories and importance factors have been consolidated for the different load types. For wind loads, importance factors have been removed and there are different wind speeds for higher risk category structures.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]-Tables for determining shear capacities of wood shear walls and wood diaphragms are no longer in the IBC. You have to use the tables in the SDPWS.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]-The steel seismic design manual, and in particular AISC 341, has been reorganized. See the preface of ASCE 341 (page 9.1-iii) for a list of (mostly minor) changes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]-In TMS 402-11, the section on shear resistance for allowable stress design of reinforced masonry (Section 2.3.6) has been revised.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Feel free to add to my list if you come across other changes that you think are important.[/SIZE]

 

[rmanske]

First of all, I thought this practice exam was very good and highly valuable in my studying, so thanks for all your time and effort in publishing this.

There were more bridge problems in the AM portions of both exams than I expected. I felt like there were a higher percentage of bridge problems on the exam than what was provided in this book. (Someone could check me on that. This is my perception, I didn't actually count.) My only suggestion would be to add a few more bridge problems to the practice exam.

In talking with people at the exam, I was surprised how many blew off studying for bridges or didn't bring an AASHTO code with them. The exam places more importance on bridges in the AM portions than I think a lot of study guides and practice exams would lead one to believe. I think for one person I talked to, studying bridge problems probably would have made the difference in getting him to pass rather than fail his previous attempt.

Otherwise, great job. I agree that the problems in the practice exam were slightly harder than the real thing, which is good. Don't change that.

 

[bassplayer45]

As a bridge designer, I will say there were many more bridge problems than previous times, especially for lateral. There were some tricky situations that I even had to say "well it depends" several times in my head. I even had to dig through the code, which I know very well, for a few answers.

 

[BoilerEng]

I just took the practice exam this weekend and thought it was well done. I had also previously completed the NCEES practice exam and found it to be a bit easier. But as rmanske said, I like that it was tougher.

I like how you forced me to do a topographic adjustment for wind speed. In practice I have never really done that and it was helpful to make me sit down and actually do one.

Also doing shear walls and moment frames for the concrete type problem was great.

Quick question on the steel problem - it calls for checking punching shear and the value used in the solution for the depth of the footing is the total depth. I think this should be d = effective depth which is the depth to the rebar. Assumed 3-3.5" less than the depth of the footing. It would also probably be appropriate to compare the the value from ACI equation 11-33 to 11-31 and 11-32?

 

[ItzmeJ0e]

Thanks for the feedback. Good catch on the lateral steel depth question. The illustration has been updated for the next edition (due out in about a month) to show d=18” as the depth to the rebar and not the full footing thickness.

You are correct that the punching shear strength would be the smallest value from equations (11-31), (11-32), and (11-33). Equation (11-31) will not control for square columns, and Equation (11-32) will only control for condition where d/b0 is very small, so the solution only checks equation (11-33). But certainly not wrong to check all three if you have time.

Good luck to everyone taking the exam!

 

[BoilerEng]

Thanks for the feedback. Good catch on the lateral steel depth question. The illustration has been updated for the next edition (due out in about a month) to show d=18” as the depth to the rebar and not the full footing thickness.

You are correct that the punching shear strength would be the smallest value from equations (11-31), (11-32), and (11-33). Equation (11-31) will not control for square columns, and Equation (11-32) will only control for condition where d/b0 is very small, so the solution only checks equation (11-33). But certainly not wrong to check all three if you have time.

Good luck to everyone taking the exam!

Appreciate the clarification - that makes sense when looking at what 11-31 and 11-32 are having us calculate.