Quiz #6

Building performance and Damage investigation after 4 hurricanes quiz:

1) Which of the following hurricanes struck Florida in 2004?

  a) Charley, category 4
 b) Frances, category 2
c) Jeanne, category 3
d) Ivan, category 3 + significant flood damage
e) All of the above

2) Based on observations of wind damage after hurricanes Charley, Ivan and Frances, the most consistent failure was:

  a) Roof covering failure
b) Mechanical and electrical equipments on the roof
c ) Soffits
d ) Window and door
e ) All of the above

3) South Florida Building Code-both with local amendments-were used to regulate construction in Florida until early 2002 at which time the Florida Building Code (FBC) 2001 Edition was adopted statewide. The FBC is administered by the Florida Building Commission and governs the design and construction of residential and non-residential (commercial, industrial, essential/critical facilities) structures. The FBC 2001 is based on SBC (Southern Building Code) ; however, Florida has completed updates to the 2001 Edition and will release a 2004 Edition of the Code for adoption in July 2005. The 2004 edition is based on the international Building and Residential Codes (IBC and IRC).

  a) True
b) False

4) In Alabama, which adopts building codes on a statewide basis only for state-owned buildings; jurisdictions have traditionally adopted editions of the SBC, (Southern Building Code) however, the city of Orange Beach adopted the 2003 IBC in the summer of 2004 and the city of Gulf Shores adopted it as an emergency measure after Hurricane Ivan. Other affected communities, such as those in unincorporated Baldwin County, still enforce the SBC.
  a) True
b) False

5) In overall observations the wood frame houses built in accordance with FBC 2001 and the 2000 IRC performed well structurally, including those located in areas that experienced winds of up to 150 mph (3 second gust) in Charley.
  a) True
b) False

6) In overall observation of manufactured housing.
  a) There was no significant difference in damage between the houses built pre-1994 HUD standard and after it. (HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)

b) In high winds the pre-HUD standard homes were mostly destroyed beyond repair. While post-1994 HUD standards homes performed well structurally, these units sustained damages related to building envelope and accessory structure failures.

7) In Concrete /Masonry buildings, failure occurred when roof structural systems were inadequately connected to the top of the concrete walls or frame and in URM structures. (URM = un-reinforced masonry)

  a) True
b) False

8) Steel frame structures were heavily damaged during the hurricane
  a) True
b) False
 
9) Significant damage to accessories occurred through out the paths of the hurricanes. Not only the accessory structures themselves fail, but in many cases the failure of the accessory structure led to damage to the primary residence at the point of attachments.
  a) True
b) False

10) The hurricane Ivan flooded the Florida coastal area. The homes in the costal area that had shallow foundation or shallow embedded pile systems damaged severely during the hurricane Ivan due to erosion and scouring of supporting soil under the foundation.

  a) True
b) False

11)  To minimize damage or prevent failure of older buildings (both residential and commercial), improvements actions that create a continuous load path from the roof deck to foundation must be undertaken. The specific recommendations are included in Matrix #2.
  a) True
b) False

---------------------------------------Ethics Section --------------------------------------


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


  a) True
b) 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 a 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.
  a) True
b) False

14) In case #17; John was a registered engineer in:
  a) Texas
b) Michigan
c) 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.
  a) True
b) 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.
  a) True
b) 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.
  a) True
b) 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 employees who were 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.
  a) True
b) False

If you would like a hard copy of your quiz answer sheet, please print this web page before clicking on the "Grade Me" button above.

You need to get at least 70% of the questions correct to pass.

 
Copyright © 2004 PEPDH.com. All rights reserved

Web HostingAward Winning Web Hosting Domain Name Registration Professional Web design at Affordable Prices Dedicated Hosting Servers with Vast Power, Security and Reliability Fastest Internet Access at the Lowest Monthly Cost