Professional Engineer Designation

GUEST POST by Greg Hora, PE

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes 7 seconds. Read Later

"I never knew you wanted to be a gym teacher!" was the response I received from one of my friends after I told them I passed the PE exam. "Well, not exactly…" was my response.

My name is Greg Hora and I’m a Professional Engineer (PE). Many of you reading this blog are yourselves engineers and PE’s. Today, I'd like to write about the PE designation; what it means, why you might want to become one, and what it takes to sit for the exam.

Ok, so what is a PE?

A PE is an engineer who has met their state’s requirements on engineering and is designated as a person who is skilled in the art of engineering. The PE designation was created in order to protect the safety and welfare of the people who will be affected by your work. By becoming a PE, you are in effect stating that you are skilled enough to perform engineering work for the public and the public can be assured that you know what you’re talking about. After obtaining this title you become legally liable for any engineering work you certify as a PE.

Interestingly, most states will typically give you the generic title of "Professional Engineer" and not "Mechanical Professional Engineer" or “Civil Professional Engineer”. I am a mechanical engineer by trade and I have the title of Professional Engineer. Now, does this entitle me to perform electrical or civil engineering work since I have my PE? Not likely… While the title is generic I’m bound by my state's regulations (and common sense) to only perform engineering work within the areas that I'm competent in.

You might be asking yourself...

"I'm an engineer performing engineering duties but I'm not a PE, what gives?" Each state’s regulations will describe this situation a little differently but for the most part there will typically be a section in the rules that exempt people from having to be a PE as long as they are working as an employee under a registered engineer and that their work does not include any responsible position of design or supervision.

As I just pointed out, you are allowed to perform engineering duties without having your PE as long as you’re working under a PE or are not in a responsible/supervisor role. Now, what if you want to move up the corporate ladder into some senior positions? This is where obtaining your PE becomes critical. Some organizations might be structured to allow you to have more responsibility without having your PE, but you’re going to be hitting that glass ceiling at some point without it, Having your PE will also allow you to negotiate better for a raise at your current position.

If you ever wanted to start your own engineering firm, you need to have your PE. Only a PE can stamp and certify engineering drawings or plans submitted to the public.

Not only does having your PE allow you to progress through the ranks at your current company, but it will be an asset if you ever decide to change companies. Imagine a hiring manager looking over a stack of resumes. It comes down to you and one other applicant. Both of you have the required skills and experience, but you have your PE. Who do you think will get the call to interview first?

Pursuing your own PE

If you're interested in pursuing your PE there are a few requirements you'll need to meet. An application to your state board is required before you can sit for the exam. You’ll need to meet education, experience, and approval letter requirements.

For your application to be accepted, you must meet the minimum engineering work experience requirements (measured in years). The education and experience requirements are related to each other and each state will have their own unique combinations of the two. An engineering technology degree will typically require a longer period of engineering experience than a bachelor’s degree. The required experience typically decreases as you go up the degree chain to masters and doctoral, but again this will vary from state to state.

A good place to find your state's licensing board is to look at the PE exam administrator National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying® (NCEES). Their website is at www.ncees.org. Another variable that can affect the required length of experience is whether or not you passed the FE exam after you obtained your degree (this exam used to be called the EIT - there is no difference between the two). You will generally need less engineering experience when that experience time is obtained while you have your FE. One combination of experience and degree that works for all states is four years of experience (while you have your FE) and a bachelor’s degree.

In addition to the engineering experience, you will need to include some letters of recommendation with your application. Again, the requirements from state to state will vary but you will typically need letters from people who are already PEs and who have firsthand experience with your work.

After all of your material is sent into the state board, and your application is approved, all that is left is for you to pass the PE exam. You'll take the exam in whatever discipline you applied for. The exam is multiple choice format and given over a single eight hour day with a break for lunch. The exam is open book meaning you can bring all of your reference books in for help.

So there you go!

Obtaining your PE is a rewarding experience. It will open up avenues in your career that are not otherwise available and lead you to more challenging experiences. I wish you all the best in your journey to become a PE!

---

If you would like to read more from Greg Hora or take advantage of some of the resources he offers, check out his website and blog: www.peprepme.com/

Let us know what you think. Leave a comment or send us and email, we read them all! blogger@eng-software.com. No need to login to leave a comment, but we do ask you keep it clean and work appropriate.

It’s the System Not the Pump: DOE’s Proposal for New Pump Efficiency Standards

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes 40 seconds. Read Later

This post covers the US Department of Energy (DOE) notice of proposed rule-making for pump efficiency. On June 13, 2011, the US DOE issued a Request For Information (RFI) regarding the establishment of energy conservation standards for pumps. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-13/html/2011-14553.htm). After viewing the information found on the Federal Register RFI, I have serious doubts about some of the estimates presented along with the value of establishing minimum pump efficiency standard.

The RFI states there are other regulatory programs that provide energy efficiency information such as the Energy Star labeling program developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency and DOE. The Energy Star labeling can be found for a variety of products such as refrigerators, dishwashers and dryers.

The Energy Star labeling program deals with appliances that are typically standalone devices. For example, your refrigerator doesn’t work with any of the other appliances in your house, making it very easy to determine how much power it will take to operate a standalone appliance in a year.

A pump on the other hand, is part of a total system that may be called on to operate in a variety of ways during a year, with a variety of flow rates through the pump. As a result, a program similar to an Energy Start labeling program for pumps would have limited value.

The RFI continues that pumps are not covered under the Energy Star labeling. It further states in “The US DOE has the intention to evaluate the energy savings potential of energy conservation standards, labels, or both, for commercial and industrial pumps.” They continue with “After public comment on this RFI, DOE will consider developing test procedures and energy conservation standards or labels for this equipment.” (Bold & italic entered by the author.)

One area in the RFI that I have real concerns about is their estimation on the availability of pump efficiency improvements. It states:

“Reports cited in this RFI estimate potential energy savings from pumps of 10 percent to 50 percent. Because these estimates include a variety of system and pump efficiency measures including proper sizing of equipment, the lowest energy savings estimate of 10 percent, based on an European Union (EU) study of pump efficiencies (cited in (c) below), is assumed for the pump efficiency alone.”

The reports cited in the statement estimating a potential energy savings from pumps of 10 percent to 50 percent are based on finding of a variety of Pumped System assessments. The energy savings are based on system related issues. A pump does not know or care how the energy it supplies to the system is used, it only reacts to the system’s needs.

For example if a pump operating with a 100 psi discharge pressure, delivering a flow rate of 300 gallons per minute and has an 80% pump efficiency, that pump consumes a given amount of energy. If the system requires 300 gallons per minute at only 60 psi a control valve could be installed to reduce the pressure by 40 psi to what is required by the system. The pump still remains 80% efficient but approximately 60% of the supplied energy by the pump to the system is wasted across the control valve. Remember, the purpose of the control valve is to reduce the excess pressure provide by the pump to that needed by the attached system.

In this example there could be a 40% saving in energy consumption by running the pump at a lower pressure and eliminating the control valve. To accomplish this, an adjustment must be made to the pump so it only produces the 60 psi required by the system. This can be accomplished by either changing the pump impeller diameter or by changing the pump rotational speed. These types of decisions are made when performing an assessment of the total pumped system.

What I really disagree with is the statement “… the lowest energy savings estimate of 10 percent, based on European Union (EU) study of pump efficiencies is assumed for the pump efficiency alone.” What they seem to be saying is based on their experience they could expect at least a 10% system efficiency improvement by improving the pump design. Earlier in the RFI it is stated:

"Pump system efficiencies depend on design factors such as surface roughness, internal clearances, solids handling capability, curve shape, mechanical shaft seal losses, and other factors.

Analyses based on data from the 2003 EU ”European Guide to Pump Efficiency for Single Stage Centrifugal Pumps ”show that for typical flow rates it is reasonable to expect an efficiency improvement of 10 percent from the mean pump efficiency to the maximum practically attainable level."

The European Guide to Pump Efficiency for Single Stage Centrifugal Pumps referenced in the RFI statement above appears to provide an indication to the pump buyer if the pump being supplied by the manufacturer is the most efficient pump. The main focus of the article is to select a pump where the system requirements are close to the pumps Best Efficiency Point based upon the pump design. I was unable to see how a pump’s efficiency could be improved by improving surface roughness, internal clearances, curve shape or mechanical seal losses.

In 2009, I attended the Hydraulic Institute (the North American pump manufacturers association) annual meeting in Marco Island, FL. During that meeting I sat in on a session presented by EuroPump (the European pump manufacturers association) describing a recent statute passed by the EU to increase pump efficiency for industrial centrifugal pumps.

What was really interesting, is the EU enacted the statute without any comments or discussion with the pump manufacturers. I find it amazing that a group of bureaucrats can state that pump efficiency can be increased by 10% simply by changing internal clearances, increase the smoothness of the castings and changing the shape of the pump curve. If it was that simple it would already have been done!

Rather than looking at new ways to develop test procedures and energy conservation standards or labels for pumps the US DOE should concentrate their efforts on their Superior Energy Performance^cm program. The Superior Energy Performance program is based on the recent Energy Assessment for Pumped Systems ASME E-2 2009 standard which concentrates on the evaluation of the entire system rather than concentrating on just the pump.

Pump manufacturers, as well as owners and operators of pumps and pumped systems, have done an excellent job of developing a variety of test standard and ways of presenting the data. The various standards have been developed by the ASME, HI, ANSI, and ASHRAE over the years to meet the needs of both the manufacturers and buyers of pumps. The standards are also reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure they are current and reflect the latest technology. Anyone who has been involved in the development or review of a standard will attest to the care to ensure the standard meets the needs of everyone concerned.

I would love it if you left a comment or even sent me an email to blogger @ eng-software.com. Also, we are currently welcoming guest bloggers. If you are interested, just send me a message about becoming a guest blogger, and what you would like to write about. Thanks!