Quiz
Questions: |
| |
|
| 1. |
One
of the recommendations to Louisiana
and Mississippi coastal areas after
Hurricane Katrina was to adopt 2006
IBC and IRC codes or 2006 NFPA 5000,
for all jurisdictions in each state.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
|
BFEs
(Base flood elevations) are the minimum
elevations to which the lowest floors,
as defined by the NFIP (National Flood
Insurance Program), are required to
be elevated |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 3. |
The
SFHA (Special Flood Hazard Areas)
zones and BFE (Base Flood Elevation)
are critical factors in determining
what building requirements apply to
a structure. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 4. |
In
Louisiana, many buildings were constructed
behind levees that were intended to
protect them from the 100-year flood.
SFHA (Special Flood Hazard Areas)
zone designation for areas protected
by the levees, are based on the certification
by the levee owner, that the levee
provides protection from the base
flood event in conformance with 44
CFR65.10. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 5. |
The
ICC (International Code Council) code
include the IBC (international Building
Code), the International Residential
code (IRC), the International Existing
Building Code (IEBC) and a series
of codes for mechanical, plumbing,
fuel, gas, and on-site sewage installations.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 6. |
In
general most of the residential buildings
in the city of New Orleans did not
experience structural damage due to
hurricane winds, but were impacted
by high flood levels. The flooding
experienced by most buildings was
slow-moving, after the floodwalls
failure the flood water stayed in
New Orleans for 2 to 3 weeks. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 7. |
In
Figure 2-1, the reasons for the successful
standing of the house compared to
the buildings around it that have
been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina
are. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
It is well elevated,
where adjacent buildings’ foundation
was not high enough. |
| |
|
|
Its pile embedment
was deeper and sufficient compared
to its adjacent structures. |
| |
|
|
All of the above. |
| |
|
|
|
| 8. |
Figure
2-3 is typical building failures when
surge and waves exceeded pier foundation
height. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 9. |
Figure
2-5 is a typical example of some of
the buildings on pier foundation that
floated off during the flood after
the hurricane. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 10. |
The
house bellow figure 2-6 is an example
of a well elevated house that survived
the flood depth associated with Hurricane
Katrina. The red dotted line is the
estimated water line associated with
Hurricane Katrina |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 11. |
Some
of the historic buildings in Louisiana
that were built on higher elevations
and taller piers (an architectural
choice, not a requirement when the
buildings were constructed in 1900)
sustained minimal damage during the
flood associated with Hurricane Katrina |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 12. |
The
predominant structural damage to the
wood frame structures, residential
and commercial, was failure of the
wall and roof elements. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 13. |
Little
structural damage was noted to most
buildings constructed with reinforced
concrete frames. Extensive structural
damage was observed to un-reinforced
masonry buildings. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 14. |
On
pre-engineered metal buildings such
as, storage facilities, aircraft hangers
or warehouses, most of the damage
was between the metal roof panels
and their supporting purlins, or between
the purlins and the steel frames.
(fig 2-16) |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| 15. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 16. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 17. |
In
case #17; John was a registered engineer
in |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Texas |
| |
|
|
Michigan |
| |
|
|
New Mexico |
| |
|
|
|
| 18. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 19. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 20. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 21. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
