Quiz
Questions: |
| |
|
| 1. |
A
building can be considered a success
in the coastal area if after a storm: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The building foundation
should remain intact and functional. |
| |
|
|
The envelope (lowest
floor, walls, openings and roof) should
remain structurally sound and capable
of minimizing penetration by wind,
rain, and debris. |
| |
|
|
The lowest floor
elevation must be sufficient to prevent
floodwaters from entering the elevated
building envelope during the design
event. |
| |
|
|
The utility connections
(e.g., electricity, water, sewer,
natural gas) should remain intact
or be restored easily. |
| |
|
|
The building should
be accessible and usable following
a design-level event. |
| |
|
|
Any damage to
enclosures below the design flood
elevation (DFE) should not result
in damage to the foundation, the utility
connections, or the elevated portion
of the building. |
| |
|
|
All of the above |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
|
The
three houses shown on figure 4-2 ,
at the time they were built, How far
were they inland behind the vegetation
line. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
10 feet |
| |
|
|
100 feet |
| |
|
|
500 feet |
| |
|
|
|
| 3. |
Unlike
wind load, safety factors for flood
resistance are not inherent in the
design process but must be specified
by the designer or owner. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 4. |
Figure
5-5 shows how a structure should consider
effects of multiple storms in a short
time. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 5. |
According
to figure 6-1, which one of the codes
should Texas coastal area comply with: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
BOCA |
| |
|
|
SBC |
| |
|
|
UBC |
| |
|
|
Regional Coastal
Requirements |
| |
|
|
|
| 6. |
According
to figure 6-1, which one of the codes
should Ft. Lauderdale, Florida coastal
area comply with: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
BOCA |
| |
|
|
SBC |
| |
|
|
UBC |
| |
|
|
Regional Coastal
Requirements |
| |
|
| 7. |
In
figure 6-2, the lowest floors of the
buildings must be at or above the
BFE (Base Flood Elevation) .Foundations
walls below the BFE must be equipped
with openings that allow the entry
of flood waters sp that interior and
exterior hydrostatic pressures can
equalize. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 8. |
Which
one of the following are the most
significant natural hazards that affect
the coastlines of the united states. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Coastal Flooding |
| |
|
|
High wind |
| |
|
|
Erosion |
| |
|
|
Earthquake |
| |
|
|
All of the above |
| |
|
|
|
| 9. |
According
to hurricane scale in table 7-1 a
Category 3 hurricane has a wind speed
of 111-130 mph and a 3 second Gust
of 139-163 mph. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 10. |
Figure
7-3 shows the number of direct and
indirect impacts by landfalling hurricanes
for costal counties from Texas to
Main, 1900-1994. According to this
map the number of hurricanes in Galveston
area is: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
21-25 |
| |
|
|
16-20 |
| |
|
|
6-10 |
| |
|
|
|
| 11. |
Figure
7-3 shows the number of direct and
indirect impacts by landfalling hurricanes
for costal counties from Texas to
Main, 1900-1994. According to this
map the number of hurricanes in Ft.
Myers, Florida area is: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
21-25 |
| |
|
|
16-20 |
| |
|
|
11-15 |
| |
|
|
|
| 12. |
Figure
7-7 shows the 90% probability of Tsunami
elevations in 50 years for the US
west coast, Alaska and Hawaii. According
to this map in case of a tsunami hits
Los Angeles, the tsunami elevation
would be: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Above 30 ft. |
| |
|
|
15-30 ft. |
| |
|
|
0-5 ft. |
| |
|
|
|
| 13. |
Erosion
Results, when more sediment leaves
a shoreline segment than move in it.
Accretion results; when more sediment
moves into a shoreline segment than
leaves it. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 14. |
According
to the flow chart in figure 7-66,
in order to estimate the maximum likelihood
of flood hazard at a site, over the
life of a building or development,
which one of the following should
be done? |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Determine most
landward expected shoreline location
over the anticipated life of the building
or development |
| |
|
|
Determine the
lowest expected ground elevation at
the base of the building structure |
| |
|
|
Determine the
highest expected BFE at the base of
the building or structure |
| |
|
|
All of the above |
| |
|
|
|
| 15. |
In
fig 8-2 the new construction was built
in the A Zone. The flood and construction
damage could have been avoided if
the building: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Was considered
a coastal A zone structure and was
elevated on an open foundation |
| |
|
|
The building was
built further back inland. |
| |
|
|
|
| 16. |
Figure
8-3 is a good example of a coastal
construction. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 17. |
Figure
8-4 is a bad example of a coastal
construction. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| 18. |
In
case #7 (of Ethics section); 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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 19. |
In
case #11 (of Ethics section); 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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 20. |
In
case # 15 (of Ethics section); 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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 21. |
In
case #17; John was a registered engineer
in: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Texas |
| |
|
|
Michigan |
| |
|
|
New Mexico |
| |
|
|
|
| 22. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 23. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 24. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
