Quiz
Questions: |
| |
|
| 1. |
Which one of the following is required when field screening the individual buildings. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Verifying and updating building identification information, |
| |
|
|
Walking around the building and sketching a plan and elevation view on the Data Collection Form. |
| |
|
|
Determining occupancy (that is, the building use and number of occupants). |
| |
|
|
Determining soil type, if not identified during the pre-planning process. |
| |
|
|
Identifying potential nonstructural falling hazards. |
| |
|
|
Identifying the seismic-lateral-load-resisting system (entering the building, if possible, to facilitate this process) and circling the Basic Structural Hazard Score on the Data Collection Form. |
| |
|
|
Identifying and circling the appropriate seismic performance attribute Score Modifiers (e.g., number of stories, design date, and soil type) on the Data Collection Form |
| |
|
|
Determining the Final Score, S (by adjusting the Basic Structural Hazard Score with the Score Modifiers identified in Step 7), and deciding if a detailed evaluation is required. |
| |
|
|
Photographing the building. |
| |
|
|
All of the above. |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
|
In Table 3-1, S1 is an example of a moment free building. The 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes showed that the welds in steel moment- frame buildings were vulnerable to severe damage. The damage took the form of broken connections between the beams and columns.

|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 3. |
In table 3-1, S2 is an example of a braced steel frame. These buildings are braced with diagonal members, which usually can not be detected from the building exterior. In recent earthquakes, braced frames were found to have damage to brace connections, especially at the lower levels.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 4. |
In table 3-1, S3 is an example of a light metal building. In these buildings insufficient capacity of tension braces can lead to their elongation and consequent building damage during earthquakes. Inadequate connection to a slab foundation can allow the building columns to slide on the slab. Loss of the cladding can occur.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 5. |
In table 3-1, S4 is an example of Steel frames with cast-in place concrete shear walls. An interior investigation will permit a wall thickness check. More than six inches in thickness usually indicates a concrete wall. Shear cracking and distress can occur around openings in concrete shear walls during earthquakes. Wall construction joints can be weak planes, resulting in wall shear failure below expected capacity.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 6. |
In table 3-1, S5 is an example of Steel frames with un-reinforced masonry infill walls. In these structures, Steel columns are relatively thin and may be hidden in walls. Usually masonry is exposed on exterior with narrow piers (less than 4 ft wide) between windows.
- Portions of solid walls will align vertically.
- Infill walls are usually two to three inches thick. Veneer masonry around columns or beams is usually poorly anchored and detaches easily.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 7. |
The building bellow is an example of Concrete moment resisting frames. In this building; Large spacing of ties in columns can lead to a lack of concrete confinement and shear failure, Lack of continuous beam reinforcement can result in hinge formation during load reversal. The relatively low stiffness of the frame can lead to substantial nonstructural damage. Columns damage due to pounding with adjacent buildings can occur.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 8. |
Concrete shear-wall buildings (Table 3.1 C2) are usually cast in place, and show typical signs of cast-in-place concrete. Shear-wall thickness ranges from 6 to 10 inches. These buildings generally perform better than concrete frame buildings. They are heavier than steel-frame buildings but more rigid due to the shear walls. Damage commonly observed in taller buildings is caused by vertical discontinuities, pounding, and irregular configuration.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 9. |
In Tilt-up buildings ( Table 3.1 ) PC1. Tilt-ups are typically one or two stories high and are basically rectangular in plan.
- Exterior walls were traditionally formed and cast on the ground adjacent to their final position, and then “tilted-up” and attached to the floor slab.
- The roof can be a plywood diaphragm carried on wood purlins and glulam beams or a light steel deck and joist system, supported in the interior of the building on steel pipe columns.
- Weak diaphragm-to-wall anchorage results in the wall panels falling and the collapse of the supported diaphragm (or roof).

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 10. |
URM, un-reinforced masonry buildings, ( table 3.1 URM). These buildings often used weak lime mortar to bond the masonry units together.
- Arches are often an architectural characteristic of older brick bearing wall buildings.
- Other methods of spanning are also used, including steel and stone lintels. Un-reinforced masonry usually shows header bricks in the wall surface. The performance of this type of construction is poor due to lack of anchorage of walls to floors and roof, soft mortar, and narrow piers between window openings.

|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| 11. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 12. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 13. |
In case #17; John was a registered engineer in: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Texas |
| |
|
|
Michigan |
| |
|
|
New Mexico |
| |
|
|
|
| 14. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 15. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 16. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 17. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|