×
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

2017 PE Exam using old CERM

2017 PE Exam using old CERM

2017 PE Exam using old CERM

(OP)
I would like to get some opinions on this.. I am taking the Civil-Structural PE exam in April, and have been studying the breadth (AM) exam questions using the CERM 8th Edition (published in 2001).. I thought I could squeak by using this old version that I had on hand, but I am considering upgrading to the latest edition. Does anyone else who is taking the exam soon (or has taken it recently) have an opinion on this? Do you think the CERM has changed enough to the point where I would need to upgrade?

FWIW, all of my other references are up to date, but I know that the CERM will be my bible for the morning exam. TIA

RE: 2017 PE Exam using old CERM

I would say using one that is a couple years old is not bad, using one from 2001, might be pushing it. Any of the CERM's published after 2012 should be good for this PE exam. You should be able to get one online for a decent price.

RE: 2017 PE Exam using old CERM

As long as you're aware of code-dependent questions and have the current codes for those, it's doable. Much of what CERM covers is conceptual, and those haven't changed much.

But, as Stenbrook says, you can probably pick up an older edition for some cheap insurance.

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

RE: 2017 PE Exam using old CERM

I took civil/structural PE last fall with a 2008 CERM. No problem. I even got by without my AISC manual but I don't recommend that as it definitely cost me a few points. My perspective is probably a bit skewed by my being structural in real life but my impression was that most of the non-structural stuff was quite independent of codes and, therefore, code updates. Perhaps the breadth portion is intended to be that way. Cuts and fills, hydraulic heads, cost benefit analyses... all that was first principles stuff. So yeah, as long as you've got good structural references for the structural depth portion, I say go for it.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

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