Practice of Engineering

[McEngr]

...I was just searching out to see if others had similar experiences since I am left to wonder from time to time... 

After being baffled with "BS" from the environmental field (I'm structural), I still can't figure out how you haven't passed the PE, JR.

I hope you nailed that puppy. You seem like a cool, intelligent cat. :beerchug

By the way, what does "ORLY" mean?

McEngr

 

[civilsurvey]

orly = oh Really? ThaT iS LeEt SpeaCk!

 

[Guest]

...I was just searching out to see if others had similar experiences since I am left to wonder from time to time...?

After being baffled with "BS" from the environmental field (I'm structural), I still can't figure out how you haven't passed the PE, JR.

I hope you nailed that puppy. You seem like a cool, intelligent cat. :beerchug

By the way, what does "ORLY" mean?

McEngr

McEngr --

Many thanks for the praise!!

I think I have paid my dues + interest when it comes to this exam. December will bring the news -- good, bad, or otherwise. I will continue to rayers: in hopes that my preparation this time gave me that +1 point that I need to pass. :+1:

Also -- I didn't know what O RLY was either. Until I looked it up and realized that space was crucial to the phoenetic pronounciation for "O' Really"

JR

 

[cement]

I love that orly almost as much as I love the :???:

but then I'm just a big teddy bear.

Not to get off topic, but there is a PG that I get great advice from on some narly soil problems involving ground nails, tieback anchors and mse walls that are over optimum but our structural guy refuses to give us the right spec! ld timer:

Now this PG has some PEs working for him, but sometimes you get good advice from someone without a license! :true:

 

[cement]

sometimes you get good advice from someone without a license!

which is what i'd tell anyone that would listen to me prior to July 3rd, 2006

 

[Tark62]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is acceptable to allow professional geologists to offer opinions, interpretations, etc. for what could be considering engineering calculations/design ??
I have come across this with some colleagues and the spectre has been raised again. I was asked if I could estimate the quantity of sediment that would be removed in a channel dredge project. Before I could answer, a geologist (P.G.) proceeded to tell me how you would calculate said volume.

I responded by saying, "O' Contraire mon Frere ... geologists can't provide calculations for the volume of sediment removal -- that's practicing engineering without a license." Said geologist was aghast and taken aback - even chastised me a tad.

I realize this is an old thread, but I am new here and thought I might have some insight as a dual-licensed PG/PE.

State laws vary, but in general, PGs have legal authority to evaluate the physical and chemical properties of earth materials, such as soil, rock, or groundwater. In this case, the issue was apparently the volume or mass of sediment in a channel. Volume and mass are physical properties, and sediment is an earth material, so I see no problem if a PG handled that part of the project. Here in California, PGs routinely prepare site assessments which include estimates of volume or mass (e.g. amounts of contaminated soil at an environmental project, or unsuitable fill at a geotechnical project).

Now, if a PG doesn't have an understanding of the engineering properties of soil, then that particular PG might not be well qualified to recognize and address all of the issues associated with this project (e.g. bank volume vs. loose volume). But the same would be true of a PE.

In fact, if you wanted the most accurate possible estimate of the volume of sediment in a channel, then your best choice probably wouldn't be either a PE or a PG. You would probably want a licensed surveyor -- a PLS -- to evaluate the channel. They have legal authority to measure areas and volumes too, and they're really good at it.

 

[Guest]

Tark62 --

All of your points are spot-on and I appreciate your contribution to comparing/contrasting professional duties for PEs/PGs. I did not include all of the pertinent issues in the orginal thread statement in order to maintain some anonymity for the project. If those details were presented and the context of the response also included, then you would indubitably share my incredulity. :true:

I noticed that you qualified your response of the practice of geology to include materials that were of earthen materials (soil, sediment, rock, water). What if the medium were a waste material - would the P.G. still have standing to certify documents as it related to the treatment and disposal of that material? This is an issue that is often raised and debated to some degree in my little corner of the world.

I again thank you for your responses and would like to extend an invitation to participate on some of the other forums

Regards,

JR

 

[Tark62]

What if the medium were a waste material - would the P.G. still have standing to certify documents as it related to the treatment and disposal of that material?

In California, waste management issues at factories, landfills, municipal water treatment plants, etc. are normally handled by PEs. But if wastes from these operations affected soil or groundwater, then a PG could enter the picture. In California, PGs commonly manage waste soil or wastewater generated during environmental remediation projects.

There are limits to what a PG can do. For example, PGs often oversee all aspects of routine remedial excavations, including confirmatory sampling, treatment or disposal of waste soil, and preparation of closure reports. But if a remedial excavation required a grading or shoring plan, or threatened a neighboring structure, then input from a Civil (or Geotechnical) PE would be required. As another example, PGs often prepare monitoring reports for sites with groundwater treatment systems, including summaries of routine treatment system operation. However, a Civil PE would be needed for the permitting, design, installation, or modification of the treatment system .

Note that California probably empowers PGs to a greater degree than most other states. California has a relatively long history of geologist licensure; geologists were first licensed at the local level in the 1950s, and have been licensed at the state level since about 1970. Also, PGs in California commonly take more exams than the two 4-hour ASBOG FG/PG exams required in most other states. I've taken 16 hours of geology exams in California myself, and it's theoretically possible to take as many as 25 hours for all of the available certifications in general geology, engineering geology, hydrogeology, and geophysics.

California is a geologically active state, and things like mining, oil production, and water supply are all major economic issues. Because of these factors, I suspect that geologists here may have a higher professional profile and status than they do in other states.

 

[vmi2000]

I have had very similiar conversations, currently I work for a local government and we are and have been accepting engineering drawings, plans, and calculations from a Certified Landscape Architect??? Go figure, I questioned it but it really didn't go anywhere internally.