Quiz
Questions: |
| |
|
| 1. |
Figure 2-2, Shows the characteristic of: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Bearing walls and infilled frames |
| |
|
|
Concrete and masonry wall buildings. |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
|
Figure 3-5 illustrates two possible inelastic lateral mechanisms for the same wall element. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 3. |
The form in page 53 is an example of: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Component Damage Records |
| |
|
|
Building location sheet |
| |
|
|
|
| 4. |
Table 5-3 in page 80, shows the likelihood of earthquake damage to reinforced concrete wall component and behavior mode. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 5. |
According to Chapter 5, section g. Flexure/Out-of- Plane wall Buckling; Thin wall sections responding in flexure may be prone to out-of-plane buckling, when subjected to cyclic flexural forces and displacements. For typical wall sections the buckling occurs only at high ductility levels. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 6. |
Table 5-1 classifies Component types and descriptions for reinforced concrete walls. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 7. |
According to Chapter 5, page 116, RC1A the criteria for insignificant damage are:
- No crack widths exceed 3/16 in., and
- No shear cracks exceed 1/8 in., and
- No significant spalling or vertical cracking
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 8. |
According to Chapter 5, RC1A the criteria for Slight Damage are:
- Crack widths do not exceed 1/4 in., and
- No shear cracks exceed 1/8 in., and
- No significant spalling or vertical cracking, and
- No buckled or fractured reinforcement, and
- No significant residual displacement.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 9. |
According to Chapter 5, RC1A the criteria for Moderate Damage are:
- Spalling or vertical cracking (or incipient spalling as identified by sounding) occurs at toe regions in plastic hinge zone, typically limited to the cover concrete, and
- No buckled or fractured reinforcement, and 3- No significant residual displacement.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 10. |
According to Chapter 6: Reinforced Masonry, RM1A; By observation; Damage in an RM1 component with a flexural response is likely to be localized in a zone with a vertical extent equal to approximately twice the length of the wall. Both horizontal and diagonal cracks of small size (< 0.05 in.) and uniform distribution may be present. Diagonal cracks typically propagate from horizontal, flexural cracks, and therefore have similar, regular spacing.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 11. |
According to Chapter 6: Reinforced Masonry, RM1B;
By observation:
Damage in an RM1 component with a flexural /shear response is typically localized to the base of the wall, within the plastic hinge region. Both horizontal and diagonal cracks will be present, with diagonal cracks predominant. Diagonal cracks may appear to be independent from horizontal, flexural cracks, and may propagate across the major diagonal dimensions. At heavy damage levels, shear deformations are likely to be localized to one or two diagonal cracks of large width. If a permanent horizontal offset is visible, the behavior mode may be Flexure/Sliding Shear |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
| 12. |
According to Chapter 6: Reinforced Masonry, RM1B
By analysis:
Analysis of a wall with a Flexure / Shear behavior mode may be difficult, with no clear distinction between the controlling mechanism of flexure (deformation-controlled) or shear (force-controlled). Calculated capacities should be in the same range. Wall axial loads may be moderate-to-high.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 13. |
Behavior Mode is; The predominant type of damage observed for a particular component. This is dependent on the relative magnitudes of the ratios of applied loads to component strength for axial, flexural and shearing actions. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 14. |
Collapse Prevention is: A performance level whereby a building is extensively damaged, has little residual stiffness and strength, but remains standing; any other damage is acceptable.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 15. |
Coupled wall is: A wall element in which vertical pier components are joined at one or more levels by horizontal spandrel components. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 16. |
Life Safety is: A performance level whereby a building may experience extensive damage to structural and nonstructural components, but remains stable and has significant reserve capacity. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 17. |
Infilled frame is: A concrete or steel frame with concrete or masonry panels installed between the beams and columns. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 18. |
A structural analysis technique in which the structure is modeled as an assembly of components capable of nonlinear force deformation behavior, then subjected to a monotonically increasing lateral load in a specific pattern to generate a global force displacement capacity curve. The displacement demand is determined with a spectral representation of ground motion using one of several alternative methods. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 19. |
Shear wall is: A concrete or masonry panel, connected to the adjacent floor system, that resists in-plane lateral loads.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 20. |
Severity of damage is: The relative intensity of damage to a particular component classified as insignificant, slight, moderate, heavy, or extreme. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| 21. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 22. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 23. |
In case #17; John was a registered engineer in: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Texas |
| |
|
|
Michigan |
| |
|
|
New Mexico |
| |
|
|
|
| 24. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 25. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 26. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 27. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|