Quiz
Questions: |
| |
|
| 1. |
Which
of the following hurricanes struck
Florida in 2004? |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Charley, category
4 |
| |
|
|
Frances, category
2 |
| |
|
|
Jeanne, category
3 |
| |
|
|
Frances, category
2 |
| |
|
|
Ivan, category
3 + significant flood damage |
| |
|
|
All of the above |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
|
Based on observations of wind
damage after hurricanes Charley, Ivan
and Frances, the most consistent failure
was: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Roof
covering failure |
| |
|
|
Mechanical and
electrical equipments on the roof |
| |
|
|
Soffits |
| |
|
|
Window
and door |
| |
|
|
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) |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 6. |
In
overall observation of manufactured
housing. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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) |
| |
|
|
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) |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 8. |
Steel
frame structures were heavily damaged
during the hurricane |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| 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 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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
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
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. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
