×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Structural Engineer Certification
7

Structural Engineer Certification

Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
I am interested in members thoughts on the drive by the Structural Engineering Certifcation Board ( http://www.secertboard.org ) to get structural engineers 'certified'.

I am not asking about being liscensed, but being 'Certified'.

The benefits seem vague at best, where as the cost ($450 Application Fee, $100 per year there after) seems a little steep.

The idea has not exactly caught fire in our part of the country (Nebraska), but I am curious if it has in other parts of the country and/or other countries.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Just what would being certified gain you?  Doesn't sound like it carriers any legal weight.  Just approval by a private organization to impress your clients with?
No such push that I'm aware of in Louisiana.  In fact here we are registered as a PE, doesn't matter what the discipline is.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

i find two items that seem to take any appeal away from the SECB certification:

1.  the certification is not recognized by any state board.  

2.  Some state boards and the NCEES's model law structural engineer definition are starting to recognize the SE 1 & 2 exams as minimum requirements to be a practicing structural engineer.  the SECB's certification allows some PE's without the SE exams to be grandfathered into the process.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

2
Galambos,

I want to take issue with your second point! I have been practicing structural engineering for 23 years. At that time SE1 and SE2 were not available. I took my PE exam in civil engineering. However, I answered all the structural problems in it.

Since I did not take the SE1 and SE2 am I less of structural engineer? I do NOT think so. There are many great structural engineers who did not take the SE1 and SE2. I am not trying to diminish the value of these exams. However, credit must be given to those who met qualifications at some point of time. Grandfathering MUST continue to take place otherwise we will commit great disservice to well qualified engineers.

My point is being a PE and being grand fathered in is not all that bad and it is not a wrong concept.

Regards,

Regards,
Lutfi

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lutfi...I'm in the same boat.  When I took the PE exam 26 years ago, I took the civil exam 'cause that's all that was offered close to my practice.

I see not point in separate certifications.  To me, that is somewhat demeaning to the profession to think that we need such to impress clients.  Let's all concentrate on getting our profession's value and worth out in the public so they'll know that qualified, licensed engineers are a necessity to the public good.

Ron

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lufti,

Certainly, we would all agree that there are PE's that are far superior structural engineers than a good quantity of SE's.  Not having taken it, certainly doesnt mean an engineer is a poor quality engineer.  In fact, im sure you are a better, more experienced structural engineer than i.  however, I am willing to wager that the SE1 and SE2 exam acts as a pretty good filter in terms of quality. this is probably the reasoning behind Illinois, Nevada, etc. to invoke the use of the SE license.  in fact, one might consider that a practicing structural PE, could have earned registration having taken the transportation PM module rather than the structural module.  

I certainly never meant to imply that PE's are less of a structural engineer than an SE, however, I dont believe that districts such as Illinois and Nevada will ever give much weight to a certification that does not require these higher level exams.  It seems to me that the exams are currently the only method available used to quantify quality or perhaps, knowledge.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I don't support the idea of grandfathering.  Meaning no offense to Lutfi or Ron by any means, getting grandfathered in only means that you've been practicing for years and years.  It doesn't mean practicing correctly.  When I say "you", I mean a general "you" and no one in particular.  Like I tend to want to say to contractors, just because you've been doing it this way for 30 years doesn't mean it's been done right.  Grandfathering circumvents the idea behind testing and qualification.  Someone who is a screw-up can continue to do so, just with another certification proclaiming competency.  Of course, all my opinion.

This is a thread I started a while back on the SECB, just for reference. thread507-114878.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

If someone has been practicing for years and years they have been practicing correctly.  Otherwise, they'd be out of work, out of a license or in jail.

I took the Civil PE exam in 87 and if memory serves me correct, 1/2 of the test was structural.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

bagman,

i would disagree.  im not aware of any case where a structural engineer has been put in jail.  plus, i also believe that one reason behind using the SE exams is to filter out some engineers who believe they are practicing correctly, but are unaware and not knowledgeable of modern advances in structural engineering, specifically those that pertain to life safety, i.e. seismic design.  to quote from Dr Nair from an article in AISC's modern steel,"It is important that we not assume that just because something works, or worked in the past, it is correct."

today's PE is split into a general civil breadth exam in the morning, and a discipline specific afternoon exam (transportation, geotech, water resources, environmental, structural).  a PE license does not reveal which portion of the exam was taken.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

3
UcfSE - your concerns about "grandfathering circumventing the idea behind testing and qualification" is true on its face.  But in reality, state boards who do not grandfather in engineers aren't gaining much, in fact they would be immediately denying a large number of good engineers the ability to put food on their table.

The idea behind grandfathering isn't circumvention, its transition.  

The theoretical lack of ensuring quality engineering is only a concern for a period of time...until those engineers who are grandfathered in are retired, dead, or have chosen to go into architecture (just kidding on that last one).

The goal of any new testing or certification will still be met; the grandfathering just allows it to be phased in and avoid the trauma of engineers losing their jobs, possible lawsuits against the board, and confusion within our industry.



RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Perhaps someone knows what was done in the past in the states that have separate Structural Licensing. Were certain engineers grandfathered in or were they forced to take additional exams? If they were grandfathered in, does anyone know what criteria was used?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Every profession progresses as time passes.  I'm not aware of any other profession that requires their people to go back and take a test to maintain their license.  Do Doctor's retake the MCAT and return to medical school because advances have been made in their field?  I don't think so.  Its' up to professional engineers as individuals to stay current with the times and knowledge about updated engineering practices.  That's why we have continuing professional development requirements and a forum like this one.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
Im not sure I put as much faith in exams to weed out unqualified engineers as some do.

I've know a few engineers over the last 18 years that were really good at test type problems, and could calcuate an answer to the 5th decimal place, but were fairly hopeless when it came to real world problems that an engineer needs to use judgement on every day.

Conversely, I've known a few  engineers who struggled mightily on an 8 hour exam, but in the office were the engineer everyone went to get advice from when they had a problem.

The best mechanical engineer I've ever worked with had a 2 year tech degree from a community college, but just knew what he was doing.

Engineering jusdgement is the most important trait of a good engineer, but its also the thing that an exam has a hard time quantifing.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

JAE, new test standards wouldn't blindside the engineering community would they?  It seems that if some new test was required, then current engineers would have some period of time to do what they need.  I can understand grandfathering if, say, a master's degree was now required to get your PE.  That represents an investment of years.  I don't agree that a single test should get the same leeway.

Really what's making me think this isn't just the principle, but it's the worthless engineers and plan-stampers who passed a test years ago will now have the same qualifications that I have to actually meet or exceed.  If you're really a good PE and more than well qualified engineer, it seems reasonable that you shouldn't have a problem passing a single test or certification.

I do understand your point though and think that there would have to be something in the process to take care of things without ruining a lot of good people.  I guess it's a good thing for some that I'm not the HMFIC smile.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

perhaps someone mentioned this and I missed it, but I believe the grandfathering phase of the certification program is over and now you have to pass a certification exam.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

There are PE's who do good structural engineering and there are PE's who do bad structural engineering.  There are SE's who do good structural engineering and there are SE's who do bad structural engineering.  No surprises there.

The benefit of a separate examination program (SE vs. PE) is to increase the chances that the public will be served by someone who has demonstrated a different or higher level of proficiency in structural engineering than would be demonstrated by taking the Civil PE exam.  That's a good thing.

As for grandfathering, it has it's place but can easily get over-used.  I am by no means a fan of general grandfathering for most anything.  For example, I am not a supporter of the age-old provision of some engineering laws that allow non-degreed individuals to sit for the exam after many years of experience.  Yes, there are exceptions where that works out well, but I think in general you find a significantly lower pass rate of such processes than the engineering population in general.  There's a reason for that.  Further,  I don't see the point in grandfathering for a private group certification....I don't even see the point in a private certification!

Should those who have been practicing structural engineering for many years as PE's be grandfathered as SE's?  Absolutely not, in my opinion.  If you want to be an SE, take the exam.  It isn't statutory in most states yet, but that's the direction and I think that's good for the profession, even if at some point I have to take the SEII in order to practice!  Who knows, I might actually pass it!

While there's a difference in qualification and certification, the certification is, on some level, a validation of qualification.

Remember, engineering is ingenuity....part theory, part practice, but not all of either.  

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

To keep this debate going I want to raise some observations from some of the feed back to my earlier comments. My observations will be in form of points and bullets:

1. I am all for grandfathering in for those who were licensed as PE under acceptable laws of states and regulated by state boards.
2. I do not promote grandfathering in non-degreed engineers. However, I must say that in my 25 year career, I have seen my share of super bright designers that surpass degreed engineers in their thinking abilities and talents!
3. I am sensing that the few who took and passed the SE exams as exhibiting an “Elitist” attitude in this forum. I really do not want to rain on anyone’s parade. However, the mere fact that some one took an exam and passed means nothing except that he was able to take an exam and passed it. It does not mean that they will make great engineers! Creativity is God given talent and you can not get it by taking and passing an exam.
4. I am not aware of other professions that require their earlier licensed members, after attaining many years of experience, to go back and be re-tested just because a new testing requirement came to be.
5. Remember, that in this country greatest structures and monuments were designed and built by the supervision of the talented PEs and non-PEs alike. There were no SE exams required.
6. I agree that continuing education should be made mandatory for all PEs to keep their license.
7. Engineers in our country (USA) suffer from lack of respect we deserve regardless of our credentials (BS, MS, Phd, PE, and SE). In my opinion is due our failures at many levels. Here we are squabbling over PE vs. SE while all regulations and laws that regulate our profession are being authored by politicians, lawyers and administrative folks ( I know for fact that many public agencies in Florida has reviewers reviewing and making decision on engineering plans that who are not PEs, engineers and some times pure administrative staff!!!!!!. This should not be, at least in my humble opinion. In other countries that I visit, engineers are revered in held in high position that is on equal footing to lawyers, doctors and judges. We need to bring ourselves into the proper position in society. First reaction from anyone about an engineer is that either you are a smart person who likes math or a Geek! We need to change this image.
8. Our profession will always have bad apples. However, with proper system checks and balances, these few bad apples can be isolated.
9. We need not settle into accepting the fact that architects and clients dictate to engineers how much our fees should be.  We get shopped all the time by some architects, owners and contactors. The sad part, there are engineers who do not hold themselves in the proper stature they deserve. I heard of engineers who prepared structural plans for a fee that I would not do the CAD drafting for! Folks, this is a problem to our profession.
10. I have seen structural construction documents that are embarrassing. Signed and sealed plans with concrete beam schedule that is totally blank!!!! I also had seen plans and details that are totally not constructible.  This serious problem that we need to fix. I do not think having an SE will solve this problem.
Before I get of my soap box I want all to keep in mind that it is not my intention to attack or insult any one; Rather want to raise the level of debate to the real issues we face as engineers.

Good day.

Regards,
Lutfi

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lutfi that was a very good post. I wish ASCE would be a little more proactive with all of this.


Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lutfi - a few responses to your bullets:

I don't agree that our engineering laws are all written by politicians and lawyers.  In my state, at least, the new SE law is being totally developed by our SEA.  Yes, the final verbiage gets reviewed by those in the legal profession, but the guts of the law comes from us.

There's a lot of denigrating of the SE exam on this site.  (full disclosure - I've taken and passed both SE I and II) - usually we hear all sorts of claims that the tests are worthless, etc. and don't show whether someone is competent or not.  But my points on the exam are this:

1.  The issue isn't whether someone can be a good engineer without, or a bad engineer with a passing grade....that is true of ANY sort of qualification system.   The issue is whether a testing screen of any type, ON AVERAGE, produces a better community of engineers.  I believe it does...on average.

2.  Your post goes on about how tests aren't all that effective, but then you finish by decrying the sad state of our profession.   Tests won't totally solve this lack of respect, but I would say that anyone who works hard enough to study their tail off, take and pass these exams is going to hold themselves up to a higher standard than someone who doesn't (on average  - there's always exceptions).  And I would bet that the engineer you cite who did a design for a very very small fee didn't have the SE exams under their belt.

3.  I'm not advocating re-testing for experienced engineers in structural - I think the "higher standards" can be phased in through grandfathering.

4.  I do not feel "elite" for passing these tests.  I feel that I've simply satisfied a legal requirement to provide me with an opportunity to practice (in Illinois).  The test took a lot of time, it took a lot of study, it took money and effort.... jusk like your engineering degree, all just like your years of experience, all just like your PE exam.  There's no reason why I shouldn't feel proud of the accomplishment of passing the SE tests just like you are proud of your own PE accomplishments.  Some posts on this site that denigrate the SE exams sometimes appear just a little too transparent.



RE: Structural Engineer Certification

JAE...well said.  I believe your disclosure was incomplete...you did the PE before all of that as I recall.

The process is important to our profession, be it structural, civil, mechanical or other disciplines.  As time has progressed, the general discipline of civil has harbored structural, civil, environmental, and geotechnical at least.  As specialization became more important to the public good, each of these subdisciplines has branched out, though some have not yet achieved specific exam status as has structural.

I support this branching...it's a natural evolution of our profession.  There will be inevitable problems with the grandfathering of those whose practice has suddenly been recognized as a specialty and requires separate examination for licensure, but those issues should not keep us from progressing our profession and keeping the standards high.

I'm glad not everyone who holds an engineering degree can pass the PE in whatever discipline they choose.  If anyone could pass it, then it wouldn't be worth much.  I personally thinks it's worth a lot, otherwise, as I've said before, I'd be doing something where there's real money!

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lutfi - after reading through the tone of my post, I do want to say that I did not intend to suggest you are one of those who "doth protest too much" about the SE.  Just seems that in some other forums (not this one) there's been a lot of slamming of any and all PE exams by a lot of non-PE individuals.  Just wanted you to know that.



RE: Structural Engineer Certification

JAE,

No offense is taken. I am a PE and all for certification. All I want is to have intellectual debate.

It is getting late. I will respond/clarify my position at later date.


Regards,
Lutfi

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

This has been a very intellectually stimulating thread.

A few of my thoughts:

1. In time, certification will be beneficial for individuals working in states where there is no separate license for structural engineering. This has been the experience in other professions; the field of medicine is a good example.

2. If the SE Cert Board has stopped grandfathering, this is a good thing, and will help level the playing field. In time, I do hope the board certification requirements will evolve to the point where they are at least commensurate with the NCEES model structural engineering law.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
Henri2:

I looked at the SECB's website, and they will be accepting applications under the Grandfathering Provision till 12/31/2015.

The catch is for every year you wait, the application fee grows by $100. It is $450 this year.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Quote (SECB Website):

The Structural Engineering Certification Board was formed to identify those professional engineers with the additional education, experience, and skills that are particular to the practice of Structural Engineering.

SECB Website

How can they propose to actually identify these individuals who are supposed to have "additional education, experience and skills" by basically only looking at the number of years they have held an active PE license and some testimony?  

According to this pdf of the SECB application, grandfathering ends 6/1/2008 (top of page 4).

SECB Application

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
UcfSE:

There seems to be a discrepency on the SECB website.

You are correct. On Page 4 of the Application form it shows the Grandfathering option to be available to 6/1/2008.

Under the Q&A section, Question #3, it says Grandfathering is available till 12/31/2015.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Being in a State that does not require the SE exams, I'm curious to know if liability insurance companies decrease their premiums if you have SE next to your name?  The reason I ask this question is to see if there is monetary value in having the additional qualification.  It's kind of like getting the driver training discount on your auto insurance.  Although I don't believe this should be the motivating factor behind SE certification, it is something to think about.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

No change in insurance in NE/IL for me.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
Our liability insurance carrier does not even ask about 'Certification' on our application

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I have a problem with grandfather clauses, especially in this case.  Who benefits from being grandfathered into a certification?  The only people that are benefitted by grandfather clauses are people who can't pass the exam.  And if they can't pass the exam, should they really be certified?  Sure they can estimate a building's cost to within 20%, they can schmooze with architects all day, and they can write a book on current construction practices, but at the end of the day, all that matters is that the building was safely designed to code.  Everything else the engineer provides is a bonus.

If ample time is given to take the SE, I'd have no problem with it being required of all structural engineers as a minimum.

Disclaimer.  I'm an EIT.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Honestly, this is a true story.  Perhaps it illustrates the problems with assumptions and perceptions?

We had a project in which a client needed us to verify the live load capacity of an existing concrete floor structure.  The existing drawings gave us rebar size & spacing, but no concrete strength.  We assumed 3000 psi and gave the floor system a live load rating.  The client needed a higher rating for his occupancy though.  What to do?  If he needed a higher rating, we would have to test the concrete.  It was annoying, but not prohibitive.  The testing company sent a crew out, drilled several sample cores, took them back to the lab and tested them.  Sure enough, tested out at 6000 psi!  This was some solid concrete!  So, we revised our calcs and gave the floor system a higher rating as the client needed.  In the end, it was the same concrete, and the same building, it just took an annoying test for us to change one number on a piece of paper, and the client was satisfied.

PS:  I am also an EIT, taking the SE1 this October, planning to take the SE2 when I feel I am ready.  Much respect to my elder engineers, and maybe I'll see you at the SE2?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Not a good comparison.  
Concrete = inanimate object, design strength not provided.  Only way to determine is test.  Engineer = human being, tested twice, proved adequate by years of practice, opinion of peers and continuing education.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

AggieYank,  Couldn't disagree more
Perhaps people who can pass the exam, have been practicing for a number of years, maintaining the continuing education and due to work load don't have the time to study for and take a 3rd licensing test.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I am a registered profesional engineer in the state of Minnesota.  As I understand the law, I may practice in any field of engineering that I am qualified in.

I have a MSCE degree (Civil).  I only do structural engineering because I am not qualified to practice in the other civil disciplines.  

When I first became registered, the state I was reigistered in had no provision for becoming registered as a Structural Engineer.  It was also my understanding at the time that most states which provided for a Structural Registration at the time, required you to first become a registered profesional engineer.

I think for new registrations starting in the future it would be ok to require that structural engineers had to be SEs.

However it makes little sense to require engineers who are already registered and can legaly practice structural engineering to become SEs.

One of the problems is the college degrees.  All my degree's are in Civil Engineering, although most of my course work was in the field of structural engineering.  

Do we want to require engineers in the future to have a Masters in Structural Engineering just to take the SE exams?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Bagman, It's a very valid point that some people wouldn't have time to study properly for the exam.  However, the same thing could be said for the PE exam, and there isn't a general outcry over that.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

It seems to me that the only value the SE tests have is that it makes the client more comfortable in hiring you.  The PE license code of ethics already restricts you to practicing only what you know.  That's why it's a profession and not a trade.

I'm wondering what instigated the whole SE test thing in the first place?  Was there a rash of bad structural designs that States decided they needed more control over who did structural engineering?  Where do you draw the line between professional responsibility and government mandated compliance?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
Aggie:

'...they can estimate a building's cost to within 20%, they can schmooze with architects all day, and they can write a book on current construction practices,...but at the end of the day, all that matters is that the building was safely designed to code.  Everything else the engineer provides is a bonus.
.'

Don't disparage the 'soft' skills of being an engineer too much. When you have significant client interface, you begin to realize how important they become.

Sometime, not all the time, but sometimes, its the lack of these 'soft' skills thats casues others (architects, owners, etc) to view engineers as nothing more than techinicians, with any one being just as good as any other. So why not hire by the lowest price?

Some of the skill of being a good engineer IMHO is being able to educate architects/owners/etc on the value that a good engineer can bring to the project and project team. We all know this, but do our clients and their clients know this? How much time do we spend talking to them about this?

Some may call this 'schmoozing' but when you work for a consulting eningeering company that depends on keeping clients satisified, it becaomes vitally important or your not in buisness very long.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I am going to borrow Lutfi's soapbox for a minute. Certification is unnecessary.  Our profession has many issues to deal with, but trying to ensure a minimum standard of technical competence, or trying to differentiate structural from other engineers via additional testing, is not the most pressing, in my humble opinion.  Most of the structural engineers I know are more than competent. They are creative, hard working, ethical and intelligent people.  If the general public had a full understanding of the great challenges habitually met and overcome by our profession they would be awestruck (I know that I am).  

Instead of spending our precious time on the certification issue, we need instead to be spending it on educating the public about what we do.  Although its important that this gets done in our daily practice, thats not enough.  No real change will occur if its left to individual practitioners alone to educate the people that they come in contact with. To see a change in public attitudes in our lifetime requires a large, expensive, concentrated and coordinated effort. The entire profession needs to be marketed properly. If some readers think marketing is a dirty word, thats unfortunate, but its the key. I don't see any of the large professional organizations doing this effectively at present, although they are trying. Bottom line is that structural engineers in this country should and need not accept a slow slide into obscure status as a "techie trade", but it will continue to happen if we let it.        

I would like to write much more but my time is limited.  Off the soapbox now.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

lkjh345, you're very correct.  I'm not trying to disparage the "soft" skills of an engineer.  The "soft" skills of an engineer are arguably as important if not more important in a consulting engineering company than the technical skills, especially when it comes to working with and retaining clients.  I currently work in a consulting engineering company.

Most clients don't know the difference between an engineer with good technical skills versus an engineer with OK technical skills.  I think clients rank engineers they work with by their "soft" skills.

Every engineer should be able to design a building to code.  What should separate a good engineer from an OK or weak engineer should be the soft skills, because they should all be proficient at the "hard" engineering skills.  In my opinion, there is a significant difference between good engineers and "weak" engineers currently, and that difference is mostly in the "hard" engineering skills.

An engineer I worked with can turn a project around in record time.  But he designs it for 20 psf wind.  And doesn't check seismic.  And I really doubt he looks at diaphragm capacity.  Or diaphragm chord capacities or chord connections.  Or uplift at x-bracing foundation connections.  Or roof diaphragm load transfer to interior lateral bracing.  Etc.  While he is a great engineer in most aspects, I feel he's perhaps a little weak in some areas on the "hard" engineering side though very strong on the "soft" engineering side.

It's idealistic to think that every engineer could design every building 100% to code, but I think requiring a SE certification would get us closer to that.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Who says all structural engineers design buildings?  In the power industry there are all sorts of different structural engineering applications.  Knowing a building code is not the most critical thing an engineer needs to know.  Knowing basic engineering principles, how to use steel and concrete codes, etc.  are.
You learn a lot more in practice than on any test or textbook.  

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

AggieYank,

I am glad to see that you clarified some of your earlier comments. I think we all agree that certification is required to practice engineering. The certification should be through education and examination. It is my contention that this process has been working fairly well at least in the states that I am licensed to practice in.

However, the entire discussion has been evolving about what happens to those seasoned engineers who met, many years ago, the requirement to practice structural engineers (by taking and passing exams)? Should they go back and get re-tested? I am of the opinion no. IN the same breath, I still maintain that all engineers MUST do continuing educations with concentration on their technical expertise.

You make and case doubt some serious allegations about a fellow engineer. If you feel that his or her work does not meet code and they pose hazard to the public, then you shall do the right thing. Discuss with him/her, his superiors and even regulators.

I can tell you from experience that for certain things I do not run calculations on paper. I may quick numbers in my head or scribble them on a piece of paper. If I get a comfort level, based on my years of experience and previous designs, then I go for it.  I am going to cite three examples to demonstrate this:

1.    I know by heart that 1/16 of weld that is one inch long is good for approximately 1000 pounds in shear. I am not sure if you know that virtually all welds fail in shear!  So if I want to quickly check adequacy of weld in shear I multiply the number of sixteenths by one thousand pounds and them multiply the result by the length of the weld. I Man done. Now if the case is more complex and requires bending and torsional analysis on the weld, I resort to one of my spreadsheets that will perform the complex calculations for me.
2.    I use similar approach for bolted connections using A325 bolts in simple of double shear.
3.    In line of your argument, about diaphragms, I know by heart that certain roof deck fixation patterns are good for so many pounds per foot. Therefore, I do not perform calculations for these simple cases. Just because it appears to you that I did not do calculations, I am not a bad or incompetent engineer!

I personally know an engineer who is so talented and experienced, he can provide you with a beam size that will work without running one line of calculations. Does that mean he is a bad engineer? You tell me!

Now about marketing:

I happen to be an owner and partner of a 20 person-engineering firm. Your use of the word “schmoozing” is inappropriate. It also demonstrates lack of understanding and appreciation of how business is run and conducted. Marketing is better word. Spend one hour watching TV and tell me how many marketing commercials you will see and hear! This is how business is done. Marketing utilizes many avenues and skills.

Engineers do not advertise their services. Most government agencies follow laws in selecting engineers. The laws require qualification based selection process. This means you do not select the design professional based on his cost! Select them based on their qualifications and past experience. Then you negotiate with the selected team. Lets face it; you do not want the cheapest heart surgeon to cut you open!

Every two weeks we must make payroll for our engineers, CAD and administration staff. If it was not for marketing and specialized marketing skills and talent (which majority of engineers do not have) my office and many others will shut down.

This is where architects are superior to engineers! They are more masterful when it comes to marketing. I have seen engineers conduct presentations and I also saw architects. Engineers lose hands down most of the time. Architects got the world so convinced that they are the only true “Prime Design Professionals” for projects. It is an image that all engineers should be constantly fighting and hoping to reverse. The NSPE has been working hard on reversing this trend as well.

When architects win projects as prime design professional, they control the engineers unless there is a good working relationship between then and the engineers. This is why marketing is essential. Without it, many engineering office will not survive and many engineers may loose their jobs.

That is all. I am having a nice easy morning as tropical storm Ernesto passes though our area.


Regards,
Lutfi

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lufti, thanks for the comments.  I think you may have me pegged a little wrong though.

Schmoozing with architects is the same thing as marketing in my book.  I'm not sure why it seems to have a negative connotation with you.  You don't need to explain the impact of marketing, as we all know it is the most important aspect of business.  My take on the subject is that just because a person is great at "marketing" doesn't mean he can be even a little sloppy on the "hard" engineering side, as I'm sure you'd agree.  We're not disagreeing here.

Non-design, or designing things by memory, such as 1/16" of weld being roughly a kip per inch, or the fact that a one story square building isn't going to have diaphragm issues, or that 1/4" by 3" plate x-bracing will be sufficient for a relatively small building, or that a nail is good for 100 pounds of shear, etc, is obviously fine.  My examples of things not checked weren't for the basic typical cases.

The only thing we disagree on is the examination vs. grandfathering in for the SE certification (or certifications in general).  And as Rod Burgundy says in anchorman, "agree to disagree".

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

How about doing it like they do in Medicine, where you have a general license (PE in our case), but are optionally (not mandatory) board certified in a specialty? The customer will then be free to select anyone with a PE, but could choose someone who is "board certified" if they so value such a credential. What do you folks think?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Sign me up to be board certified in the "FUBAR" specialty area.  
(Will have lots of work).  Regards

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I wonder if the push to have civil engineers registered as SE's, will increase the liability of structural engineers.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Reading through this topic today and being in a rather self centered mood, I'm thinking about what this all means to me.  In one of AggieYank's posts he says "The only people that are benefitted by grandfather clauses are people who can't pass the exam."  And I realized that at least for me he is probably right, I don't think I could pass even a PE exam again today.  The reason is because I've become specialized over the years and there are areas like concrete and foundation design that I haven't done for a long time.

Fortunately for me this probably won't be an issue.  I design a structural product (elevated bins) that are manufactured and shipped throughout the country (US.)  PE stamps are seldom required from me or my employer, and I don't think the SE will be part of this business.  But I mention this here because other engineers could be in a similar situation due to a variety of different reasons.  In my opinion there needs to be a way of recognizing existing competence in the profession without mandatory testing, and that could be grandfathering.

Just thought I would add my 2 cents.

I agree

Regards,
-Mike

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that those in favor of requiring a SE license instead of just a PE license and retesting to get the SE are the younger engineers whose college coursework is still relatively fresh in their brains; while those of us opposed have been out of school and in practice for a while. Not be detract from the importance of an engineering degree and passes a licensing test, but IMHO we learn a lot more in practicing engineering than in a classroom, which is why I'm opposed to any re-testing to maintain a license.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Bagman2524 - I am in favor of SE licenses.  I've been in this business since 1979.  Of course, I may be an exception rather than a rule.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Bagman, that would be like me saying that only those who can't pass the exam are in favor of grandfathering.  That implies incompetence due to those people allowing areas of their well-oiled machines (brain) to rust.  No one likes to be called an inexperienced young pup anymore than they want to be called an incompetent or lazy gray-hair.    

Why do we have to bring those with ability down so that those without don't get left behind?  Why shouldn't those who can't have to work harder or get passed by?  If you really want to raise the perception of our profession, you need to raise the bar, raise the standard for performance, not lower it or keep the status quo.

Really what's the point of all this?  Being certified by the SECB is not required and knowing the government, by the time it is, all of our grandfathers who won't/can't take the test will be retired anyway.

Let's keep in mind something.  This is meant for discussion, not finger-pointing nor member bashing.  I mention no specific person here and only bring up further points for discussion.  

Here's another point.  Perhaps engineers should have to go to engineering school, like MD's and JD's have to go to their respective schools.  Would raising the level of required education to that of the doctor or lawyer help us as a profession?  

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

MrMikee, thats a good topic you mentioned, one that others have mentioned too.  Requiring a SE isn't necessary, in my opinion, for structural engineers that design a specialized item, such as elevated bins, or maybe roof joists, or light gauge studs, etc.  Galambos posted an article that mentioned that several states require a SE cert. for buildings over 45 ft. tall, or multi family residential buildings in high seismic, etc.  I think requiring the EOR to be SE cert., or something similar, on higher profile, or potentially more dangerous, projects is a good way to go about it.

Bagman, like you mentioned, you learn much more out of school than in school.  Shouldn't what you learn make it easier to take an exam though?  Does the SE have questions that don't pertain to building / bridge engineering?  If it does, then I can see how having had a course recently on construction management, or water resources engineering, or surveying could help.  However, I would think that an exam made up by engineers wouldn't have non-pertinant questions however.

I'm in favor of the SE being required because it raises the bar for all structural engineers.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I support PE licensing and probably the SE license based on what I know at this time.  I am in favor of continuing education and/or other means of maintaining competent professionals in structural engineering.  If another layer of certification is added there needs to be in my opinion a way to recognize and certify qualified professionals already practicing.

As I said in my previous post the SE won't affect me.  My point is that there are engineers that will have difficulty with the re-testing.  Personally I would like to learn something new or state-of-the-art to make my employer or me more competitive, rather than to relearn something I haven't needed.

That's the way I see it now, perhaps in my younger days I would have had another viewpoint.

Regards,
-Mike

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I am in favor of SE licenses as well.  But not the way I've seen it proposed on this thread.  It needs to be a much more phased in approach.  It doesn't seem fair to me to require someone who has met the requirements of their day, (i.e. obtaining a bachelor's in Civil Engineering, passing the EIT, practicing under guidance of superiors for 4 or more years, passing the PE exam of which half includes structural problems, practicing successfully as a licensed engineer for a number of years, meeting continuing education requirements, etc.)to suddenly have the requirement placed on them to pass a test to maintain their license.  That's basically like saying, "forget about what you've done in the past to earn your license, you have to start over and earn it again." The current system requires continuing education and monitor's engineers via peers and other methods to ensure they are practicing appropriately to maintain their license.

I also support separating structural engineering out of civil engineering curriculum's in colleges.  Civil engineering is much too broad a field as it is and structural should be in a classification of its' own in the college world and proffessional world.

Practicing engineering teaches us things that we don't learn in school, but not necessarily things that will help us on a test.  As pointed out by MrMikee, our employers expect us to learn what will help them in their business, not necessarily what will help us broaden our engineering skills or futhur our career.  Therefore, its' easy to developed a specialized knowlege which won't necessarily help on a test.  Do we take this type of engineer's license away?  I don't think so.  I think engineers are decent ethical people who know what their level of competence is and won't stamp or sign something they have significant doubts will work.  Whic is a point I think has been overlooked in this thread.

My comments weren't meant to bash or belitte anyone. Sorry if I came accross that way.  I'm only trying to express strong opinions on something I feel strongly about.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

What problem are we trying to solve here?  The problem, as I see it, is that non structural PEs are stamping structural drawings.  I've seen it happen repeatedly.  We need to put a stop to this practice by distinguishing structural engineers from others.

The problem is not: that practicing structural engineers are losing their competency to practice and need to be goaded into retraining.

That said, the solution is to establish an SE designation, and require it for structural work. The solution is not: further continuing education, or testing to establish competency.  Goodness, some of the worst engineers I've known have been excellent test takers.

Engineers that hold a PE should be grandfathered in.  New SEs should be tested as SEs, instead of PEs.  In time, the problem (stated above) will be solved.

Engineers with an active family life, a home that requires maintenance, a basic exercise program, and interests outside of the profession don't have time to prepare for further certification, or continuing education.  We should not be penalized for having a well rounded life.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

jmiec,

as it has been pointed out, some states require an SE stamp for complex structures, which require a higher degree of competency (CA,NV,NM).  The higher level SE license is intended to provide this proof of competency (much like the PE), through the eyes of the licensing boards.  if we can accept this reasoning for the use of the SE license, i believe that the "no time to study" argument doesnt seem like a very good justification to waive these requirements.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Perhaps I missed the answer in all the responses above, I apologize if that is the case.

Would it be possible to get back to the original question, as posed by lkjh345? I am a mech. engr. PE, not an SE in Missouri. It appears to me that there is a big difference between 'certification' as proposed by the Structural Engineering Certification Board (SECB) and professional registration that comes with meeting al the requirements for SE or PE.

Is anybody familiar with the SECB? Is it legit or a scam (that is, just another group wanting to take your money in return for little or no benefit to you)? The SECB is proposing a "common national process for structural engineers to become certified." So what? Can you do anything with such a certification? As it stands now, to be best of my knowledge, there is currently no national professional registration; it's all done state by state. Is the only useful license or certification, if you will, the PE or SE for a structural engineer? What SECB is proposing seems to be outside the current professional practice and legal structure; you can't sign off drawings or approve designs with this SECB certification, you still have to be PE or SE (depending on the state). They've got a long list of people who have this certification, but what good does it do any of these people or any of us?

Has any among you gotten this certification and has it done you any good? Now I think Missouri has no SE registration, everyone just takes the CE exam. A quick comparison of Missouri's PE list against the SECB's list shows that of the 11 SECB certified struct. engineers, 9 are PEs in Missouri.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Galambos-

I don't accept "this reasoning for the use of the SE license."  In my mind, the sole purpose of the SE license should be to prevent non structurals from doing structural work.  Passing an SE exam (or accumulating continuing education units) has little relationship to structural competence.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

(OP)
Prost:

Your post nicely sums up some of my concerns regarding certification.

At the moment, it has no legal significance, as the individual states regulate and liscense engineers. Also, our firm has not expereinced any clients, or potential clients, asking about Certification. So, the benefits to being 'certified' seem dubious at best, where as the costs seem a little excessive IMHO.

Another concern is who exactly appointed SECB to be the arbitrator of Certification for Structural Engineers? Some national organization? Or are they self-appointed?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Sounds like they're self appointed to me.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

the SECB (http://www.secertboard.org/) was started by the National Council of Structural Engineers Association (NCSEA, http://www.ncsea.com/) after several years (1998 thru 2003) of discussion among the various member states' organizations.  this is a statement copied directly from the SECB homepage:   "To provide the public and stakeholders with an identification instrument that distinguishes an engineer with those unique and additional qualities necessary to perform structural engineering."  the history of the SECB is available on the SECB website.

I am not advocating or denouncing the certification of structural engineers.  personally, I am on the fence about it and have yet to decide whether or not to participate.  But I know, as some of you likely know, that the medical profession uses certification as a tool/means to help the public identify a physician or other health care professional as a recognized "expert" in their field.  The "expert" was certified by their peers as being better qualified than the un-certified people.  There are "board certified" health care professionals all across the US.  The medical profession has done a marvelous job "training" the public into thinking that a "board certified" professional is better than a non-certified professional.  is that true?  dunno.  also, the only way being a certified structural engineer means anything is if the public knows certified structural engineers exist.  informing the public of this is going to take time.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Isn’t a medical "board certified" doctor is equal in our profession to certified engineer such as PE? They pay their dues through education, residency and then examinations.

I am ignorant in the case if there are further board certifications for each sociality.

Regards,
Lutfi

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

SECB certification is above and beyond state licensure.  Licensed S.E.'s (in most cases licensed P.E. also) meeting additional criteria may apply and obtain this additional certification.

In my part of the country, licensed S.E.'s in general don't see a direct benefit to be certified.  I don't know of many who are pursuing this certification.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Lutfi, IMO, medical board speciality is somewhat analogous to a GE or SE license. From what I understand, the doctor would first have to obtain a medical license to pursue board certification. Medical board certification requires highly sructured, documented, rigorous post-professional degree/medical license training, coupled with exams.

Most SEs I know in CA, are very happy with the state's SE licensing program..but do not see any value in obtaining board certification.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

it is my understanding that a board certified physician is certified in a specialty field, which is in addition to a medical license.  if you are a PE, being certified thru the SECB would mean you are "qualified" to practice structural engineering.  at least that's what "certified" means to me with regards to structural engineering.  

it's somewhat amazing to me that NCSEA discussions were held about certification for 5 years without some of you having heard about those discussions.  how many of you are a member of a state chapter of NCSEA?  I wonder if the SECB would have been created if this much discussion had been made available to the NCSEA during the 1998-2003 period?  unless I'm misreading things, appears to me like many of the posters in this thread are not much in favor of certification for structural engineers, mainly because it serves no purpose.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

archeng59 and others:
 What is the purpose of certification, SECB originated or from some other organization? You can't use it to approve drawings, etc., all the stuff you use your PE/SE for, clients don't ask for it and your boss probably doesn't even know it exists. You can list the tangible benefits of PE/SE registration; what about listing tangible benefits (for instance, public safety, puts money in your pocket, etc.) to SECB certification?

What purpose does even NCSEA serve? If you are structural engineer, you can benefit from being involved in ASCE, NSPE and your state's SPE. I could tell you purpose of these 3 organizations; what other prof. organizations benefit you in your structural engineering career? My take on these organizations is that many of them are dying slow deaths, some because of shrinking candidate pool, some because of perceived irrelevance by the candidate pool.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Board Certification in Medicine requires a 2nd examination beyond the 1st examination done to obtain a state license. Periodic reexamination is also required to keep the Medical Board Certification. My Doctor friend says that his certification reexamination cycle occurs every 5 years.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

archeng59, someone with an S.E. license from his/her state is "qualified" to practice structural engineering in that state.  Certification by SECB and licensing by each state are completely separate.  License is required to practice but certification, to me, seems voluntary.  I really don't see the added value to the certification other than having bragging rights for the rest of one's career.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I passed the SE1 exam but my state does not have an SE designation of any kind.  I am a licensed PE and the only type of engineering I practice is structural engineering.  am I less qualified to practice structural engineering than someone in another state who has an SE designation?  being certified as a structural engineer would allow people to know I specialize in structural engineering as opposed to civil, mechanical, electrical.  but only if people know what "SECB" means behind my name.  otherwise, I don't know what purpose being certified would serve except as "bragging rights."

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

My understanding is that the ultimate goal of certification is to eventually bring about separate licensing of structural engineers in all states.  Most states do not have a separate structural license and those that do have often had differing licensure requirements.

It is almost impossible to independently lobby every state to bring about a uniform nationwide structural licensing system.  So they decided to start with the baby step of certification.  Then if that catches on, they can just ask each state to adopt this system for their structural licensing.  But there is a lot of inertia to overcome before it can take flight.

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

archeng69, my previous post was for states that do offer an S.E. license.  I do see your point about states that do not have an S.E. license.

Even here in California, P.E. in Civil has authority to sign practically most projects.  Only Educational (K-12 and junior colleges) and Healthcare Facilities require an S.E. license.

California used to require a 16 hour SE exam pass/fail.  Now, it has a national and a state specific (8 hours each).  I heard that other states that offer S.E. license have SEI, SEII and SEIII exams.  I was under the impression that state-portion of the S.E. exam in California was roughly equivalent to SEIII, someone can correct me if I am off.

Until SECB certification is recognized by considerable number of states, obtaining your SE license from the closest state seems to be a better option.

For some interesting reading: http://www.seaonc.org/public/about/origin.html

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Most states offer the Structural I & II exams without having a separate SE license.  They could choose to have a separate license based on those exams without any further requirements.

What's the point of having a separate certification beyond taking those exams which already exist?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

I have a question considering several people have compared PE and SE registration to medical registration.

Will a future requirement that engineers hold a SE,increase fees that those engineers receive in their practice?

Specialist in medicnie receive higher fees, but will SEs?

RE: Structural Engineer Certification

Unfortunately, engineering fees are often based on percentage of total cost of a project.  Regardless of whether a PE or SE signs off on a project, difference in fee is negligible.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources