I think that certifications to establish a minimum level of specialized expertise are a necessity for public safety, since they help prevent practitioners from practicing outside their areas of expertise. I was a member of the forensic team which investigated the 2017 Oroville Dam spillway incident in California, which involved evacuation of about 188,000 people and recovery cost over $1 billion, and one of the main lessons learned from the investigation was that engineers were practicing outside their areas of expertise, usually inadvertently, because they "didn't know what they didn't know." The forensic report can be found here:
https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Independent%20Forensic%20Team%20Report%20Final%2001-05-18.pdfI believe that the PE is suitable to establish general competence in civil engineering. The problem I see with the SE is that it establishes competence in application of detailed codes for buildings and bridges, including seismic provisions, whereas, as others have noted, most structural engineers don't have substantial experience with both buildings or bridges - it's usually one or the other. An engineer could be an expert in non-seismic bridge engineering, with an excellent grasp of structural engineering principles, yet have difficulty passing the exam due to not having specialized experience (or interest) in building structural engineering or seismic aspects.
To remedy this, I would revise the scope of the SE exam to cover understanding and application of general structural engineering principles, rather than being specific to buildings and bridges and their codes. Such a revised exam could cover topics such as the following, in a depth beyond the PE exam: structural loads, statics, structural dynamics, mechanics and properties of materials, structural analysis and behavior of various types of structural systems and elements (beams, columns, grids, trusses, frames, arches, towers, shells, retaining systems, etc.), failure modes for structural systems and elements, and design of structural elements. Such an exam would emphasize
conceptual understanding and skill, rather than knowledge of specific codes for specific types of structures.
This type of SE could be supplemented with further exams to certify competence in more specialized areas such as building structural engineering, bridge engineering, and seismic analysis and design.
I believe that reforms along these lines would result in a high percentage of structural engineers seeking both an SE as well as the more specialized certifications for buildings, bridges, and seismic.
------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland 21204
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-12-2019 11:21
From: Randall Bernhardt
Subject: SE/PE exams - should buildings & bridges be separated?
Stephanie:
Excellent question and quite appropriate. Just now seeing the discussion after a year. Since the PE exam is to test for competency of your practice in structural engineering, then it would be appropriate to have a test that covered the areas that you practice in. There are many people who only specialize in either building or bridge, but very few who practice in both. It would be appropriate to have an exam that covered that building or bridge specialty, however, if the person changed direction at some time in their career, they should have to take the other specialty exam before they practice in that area. The codes are complex and absolutely totally different for bridges and buildings, especially for seismic. The response modification factors are applied differently and the hinge locations are totally different. It seems like the practice of structural engineering is becoming more narrowly focused for many engineers. I wonder if the breadth portion of the exam is even applicable for most people.
------------------------------
Randall Bernhardt P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Senior Consultant
St. Peters MO
Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2018 16:49
From: Stephanie Slocum
Subject: SE/PE exams - should buildings & bridges be separated?
Hi all,
I had a discussion the other day with a colleague studying for the PE exam. He, like me, has only ever worked (and only ever plans to work) in the building structures world. Many of my bridge-designing friends say the same thing about bridges. It seems like firms and people generally don't do both, at least here in PA. Yet, both types of questions are covered on the PE exam. Particularly for the code-specific questions, this seems to be creating an undue burden (both in cost and time) on engineers who will never use that material. For example, I've never worked in an office that had an AASHTO code, and had to personally purchase one when I took the test; the local library only carried it as a "reference" which meant you could not check it out.
Are buildings and bridges designed by different specialists where you live? Do you think it would be beneficial if buildings and bridges were entirely separated in the exams?
------------------------------
Stephanie Slocum P.E., M.ASCE
Founder
Engineers Rising LLC
State College PA
www.engineersrising.com
------------------------------