| 1. |
Earthquakes result in ground motions, both horizontal and vertical, which can be compared to waves. The motion is generally vibratory and will cause a structure to move rapidly first in one direction and then another. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 2.
|
Which one of the following is considered a “Qualified Site” for which guide is applicable? |
| |
|
| |
|
Stable and solid geologic formations - bedrock |
| |
|
Firm, stable soil deposits |
| |
|
Stable hillside slopes |
| |
|
Engineered land fill placed over stable soils FILL |
| |
|
Sites recommended by a professional soil consultant |
| |
|
All of the above |
| |
|
|
| 3. |
The Guide has been developed for application to simple, conventional plans with regular and typical architectural features, see Appendix A. The Guide is most useful for dwellings with the following characteristics.
- Regular or symmetrical floor plans.
- Floor plans with balanced widths of shear wall or bracing in each exterior wall.
- Elevations with limited openings.
- Roof shapes that are symmetrical with minimal offsets and limited openings.
- Conventional wall framing systems. Typically these are wood stud walls, steel stud walls, clay masonry walls and concrete masonry walls.
- Chimneys located and anchored as described in the Guide.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 4. |
The following dwelling types and configurations listed below are not included in this Guide. Table No. 1 on page 11 illustrates 5 common examples.
- Platform framing on stilt supports.
- Post and beam framing with long, uninterrupted expanses of glass.
- Overhanging two-story construction where the exterior walls do not continue to the ground.
- Staggered floor systems involving more than two levels.
- Exterior glass walls without shear panels.
- Floors and roofs with extreme overhangs and balconies.
- Pole-supported framing.
- Attached carports with open sides and corner posts.
- Open courtyards with all glass building wall enclosures.
- Buildings constructed on slopes steeper than 3:1.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 5. |
Landsliding is a particular hazard where poorly compacted fill has been placed on a hillside slope. Landsliding may cause damage in the absence of earthquake shaking and should be of concern even in low seismic risk areas. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 6. |
Table No. 1 shows: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Architectural exclusions for this guide |
| |
|
Architectural inclusions for this guide. |
| |
|
How to build on a hill |
| |
|
Various foundation designs |
| |
|
|
| 7. |
Liquefaction is a phenomenon: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
where loose saturated sandy soil loses bearing capacity and becomes like quicksand during earthquake shaking. |
| |
|
Water leak from a failed sewer pipe mixing with the soil underneath the foundation. |
| |
|
Too much water in the concrete mix |
| |
|
|
| 8. |
Figure 22 shows: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
A 7.2 Richter scale earthquake |
| |
|
Surface fault displacement |
| |
|
|
| 9. |
In figure 62; Shear walls resist earthquake loads transmitted to them by floor and roof diaphragms. A shear wall is required along each side of the perimeter of the floor or roof (horizontal) diaphragm, usually in each exterior elevation. The most effective locations for the exterior shear walls are at the corners of the building where the walls are mutually perpendicular to each other and have a common point of intersection. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 10. |
The home builder check list on page 77 is provided for the home builder to use to determine whether important recommendations for seismic resistant design have been considered when constructing a residence. The builder should refer to the Guide for information on each of the items listed. This list should not be considered as being all inclusive. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 11. |
The appendix on page 80 shows: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
A typical floor plan for an earthquake resistant house |
| |
|
A floor plan for an storm resistant house |
| |
|
A floor plan for house in the flood zone |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| 12. |
In case #11; It was alleged that Mr. Doe, a Texas PE engineer, altered boundary information on Survey plats for a subdivision that had been prepared by a license surveyor, affixed a copy of the surveyor’s seal to the plats and submitted the plats to county officials for approval without knowledge of the surveyor. The Board reportedly suspended his license for one year and fined him $1000.00 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 13. |
In case # 15; It was alleged that Jim, the company’s president, designed seven swimming pools and affixed a copy of a Texas Professional engineer’s seal and signature that he had obtained from another source to the plan sheets which were submitted to a city for permitting. Board records did not show that Jim was licensed as a professional engineer in Texas nor that his company had Texas professional engineer as a regular full-time employee. The Board accepted an Agreed Board Order signed by Jim to cease and desist from any and all representations that his company can offer and/or perform engineering services and from the actual performance of engineering services until such time as the company hires a Texas licensed professional engineer as a regular full time employee, and to immediately discontinue the use of the Texas professional engineer’s seal and signature on any and all documents. Jim also agreed to hire a Texas professional engineer to perform after the fact engineering inspections and issue certification reports for the five swimming pools that were permitted and constructed. The company was also ordered to pay a $5000.00 administrative penalty. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 14. |
In case #17; John was a registered engineer in: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Texas |
| |
|
Michigan |
| |
|
New Mexico |
| |
|
|
| 15. |
In case #21; It was alleged that Billy signed his name and affixed his Texas Architectural seal to structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing design plans for renovation of a commercial building. Based upon the size of the building, the structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing designs were required by law to have been performed by a licensed professional engineer; therefore Billy’s preparation of these design plans constituted the unlawful practice of engineering. The Board accepted a consent order signed by Billy and his attorney agreeing that Billy will not practice engineering outside the exemption listed in the Engineering practice Act and will refrain from making any and all representations that he can offer and/or perform engineering services until such time as he hires a Texas licensed professional engineer as a regular full time employee or until such time as he becomes a Texas licensed professional engineer. Billy also agreed to pay a $1000.00 administrative penalty. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 16. |
In case #6; It was alleged that Jim provided professional engineering design services in connection with residential foundation design and exterior wall systems during a period when his Texas engineer license was expired. The Board accepted a Consent Order signed by Jim for a two-year probated suspension of his Texas engineer license contingent upon his payment of a $2000.00 administrative penalty. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 17. |
In case #7; It was alleged that Dr. Smith conducted an engineering inspection for his client in December 1998; but did not provide his client with his inspection report until February 2000. This Indicated that he was not acting as a faithful agent for his client and his actions were not in keeping with generally accepted engineering standards and procedures. The Board accepted a Consent Order signed by Dr. Smith for a formal reprimand. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| 18. |
In case # 24; John-David-Bill, Inc. It was alleged that site grading and drainage plans for two projects were submitted to the city of Brownsville, one set bearing John’s signature and architect seal and the other bearing David’s signature and architectural seal. The size and scope of the respective projects required that Texas licensed professional engineers prepare the grading and the drainage design plans. Board records did not show any of the three were licensed as professional engineers in Texas nor that their company had any regular full time employee who was licensed as professional engineers in Texas. Therefore it appears these individuals unlawfully performed engineering services and their respective plans were an unlawful representation of their company ability to offer and /or perform engineering services. The Board accepted a Consent order signed by the president of the company to cease and desist from practice of engineering and from any and all representations that the company can offer of performing engineering services until the such time as the firm hires a full time employee who is licensed as a professional engineer in Texas. The company also agreed to pay a $2000.00 administrative penalty. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
True |
| |
|
False |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
