Quiz
Questions: |
| |
|
| 1. |
The
FBC (Florida Building Code) is administered
by the Florida Building Commission
and governs the design and construction
of residential and non-residential
buildings in Florida. The 2001 FBC
(effective March 2002) is the applicable
building code for the state of Florida. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
|
When
comparing the SBC (Southern Building
Code), the FBC, and ASCE 7 in hurricane-prone
regions, there are three notable differences
that have evolved in these codes and
standards that will affect the performance
of building. The differences are. |
| |
|
- The design wind speed and the
averaging time of the wind speed
- How and where pressures are
calculated on a building
- Requirements for debris impact
protection
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 3. |
Exposure
is the term used in Florida Building
Code and ASCE 7 to define the roughness
of the ground surface around a particular
building site. Selection of the correct
Exposure Category is an important
step with the wind load determination
process that can alter design wind
pressure by more than 15 percent across
the building. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 4. |
Although
the HUD Manufactured Home Construction
and safety Standards, 24 CFR 3280,
cover the design and construction
of the home itself, it is the local
jurisdiction that regulates the installation
of the home. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 5. |
According
to the wind zone map in Fig 2-2.,
Miami would be in |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Zone I |
| |
|
|
Zone II |
| |
|
|
Zone III |
| |
|
|
|
| 6. |
Wind
speeds are measured and recorded as
sustained and gust wind speeds. For
consistency, the report defines sustained
wind speed as 1-minute average wind
speeds and gust wind speed as 3-second
peak gust wind speeds. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 7. |
When
a building is not designed for internal
pressure or if a window or door is
broken (breached) such that wind is
allowed to enter the building, the
building experiences an increase in
loads that was probably not designed
to handle. Fig 3-2 shows a masonry
home with a wood roof structure. Failure
of the window in the front wall of
the house likely led to pressurization
of the house and contributed to the
dramatic failure of the roof structure. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 8. |
Figure
3-3 and 3-4 show two identical wood
frame buildings adjacent next to each
other that were in the hurricane path.
One building has lost its roof, while
the next building is equipped with
protective shutters and is undamaged.
The reason the second building survived
was. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The building escaped
the pressurization because of the
protective shutters. |
| |
|
|
Pure luck |
| |
|
|
Hurricane changed
its path |
| |
|
|
|
| 9. |
The
extensive structural damage to the
manufactured home in figure 3-8 is
the result of 3-second peak gust wind
in excess of 110 to 130 mph. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 10. |
In
Figure 3-9 the wood truss roof failure
was caused as a result of : |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Sheathing loss
and lack of bracing at gable end on
a pre 2001 FBC un-reinforced masonry
building. |
| |
|
|
Earthquake |
| |
|
|
Termite damage
in the attic. |
| |
|
|
|
| 11. |
Figure
3-14 and 3-15 are typical asphalt
shingle roof covering loss due to. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Hurricane |
| |
|
|
Hail damage |
| |
|
|
Flying debris |
| |
|
|
|
| 12. |
In
Figure 3-20 the cracks at the wooden
entry door frame of the house has
been caused by: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Wood decay |
| |
|
|
Slamming the
doors too hard |
| |
|
|
Wind load |
| |
|
|
|
| 13. |
Figure
3-40 is typical metal roof panel and
siding debris caused glazing damage
to the homes. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 14. |
Figure
3-58 shows the damage to a pre-engineered
metal building which was designed
for use as a: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Pet store |
| |
|
|
Shelter |
| |
|
|
Warehouse |
| |
|
|
|
| 15. |
Figure
4-4. Shows load path and wind uplift
on a roof of a two story building
with a primary wood-framing system. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 16. |
Figure
4-5 shows how the roof has blown off
over a cathedral ceiling. The cause
of roof getting blown away was |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Pressurization
of the house when the window failed
on the windward face during hurricane. |
| |
|
|
Gas explosion
in the house |
| |
|
|
Bad roof design |
| |
|
|
|
| 17. |
In
figure 4-6 the roof decking has failed
due to the uplifting load discussed
in question 15 and figure 4-4 diagram |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 18. |
Figure
4-11 shows: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
A bad roof job
on a newly constructed home |
| |
|
|
A new concrete
masonry residence built to 2001 FBC
code. The building structurally
performed well during hurricane, although
it experienced some asphalt shingle
damage. |
| |
|
|
|
| 19. |
In
Figure 4-12 the reinforced masonry
wall system is adequately designed. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 20. |
In
Figure 5-4 the damage to the garage
door was caused by. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The car backed
into the garage door. |
| |
|
|
The suction load
in the building’s front envelope. |
| |
|
|
|
| 21. |
In
Figures 5-7 and 5-8 the masonry wall
is tilted because of: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Bad design |
| |
|
|
Bad construction
of non-load bearing wall. |
| |
|
|
The suction pressure
loads on the other side of the tilted
masonry wall. |
| |
|
|
|
| 22. |
Figure
5-15 shows: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Plastic shutters
were not effective during the Hurricane
and they were blown off. |
| |
|
|
Plastic shutters
were effective during the Hurricane. |
| |
|
|
Those are not
plastic shutters |
| |
|
|
|
| 23. |
Most
structural failure observed after
the hurricane Charley appeared to
be the result of inadequate design
and construction methods commonly
used before the 2001 FBC; some failures
were caused by lack of maintenance
or poor condition of the building
and its structural elements. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 24. |
It
was observed that the performance
of the manufactured houses against
the hurricane was a function of age
of the building and the regulations
to which the units were designed,
constructed and installed. Widespread
damage was observed to manufactured
housing designed and constructed prior
to the 1976 HUD. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 25. |
Buildings
designed and constructed to resist
wind loads prescribed in the 2001
FBC and to the requirements of ASCE
7-98 performed well and showed how
improvements to the building codes
have been successful in Florida. Structural
damages, however is still occurring
during code level events such as Hurricane
Charley. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 26. |
Breach
of the building envelope through broken
windows, failed doors, or loss of
sheathing will not lead to rapid and
uncontrolled increases of the internal
air pressure in buildings. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 27. |
Observations
have shown that roof covers and their
accessories do not get damaged during
hurricane. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 28. |
Aggregate
roof surfacing does not cause debris
damage when aggregate was blown off
the roofs by high wind. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 29. |
For
all roof systems, inadequate attentions
were typically given to edge flashing,
coping, and gutter/downspout design
and installation despite being located
in the roof areas subject to the highest
wind pressure. Failure of these roofing
components often initiated roof membrane
lifting and peeling. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 30. |
Windows
and glazed doors can be protected
in all wind regions using shutter
systems, laminated glazing systems,
and other means of opening protection. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
True |
| |
|
|
False |
| |
|
|
|
| 31. |
Which
one of the following are the benefits
of shutters. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
They minimize
an inrush of air that might cause
a building not designed for internal
pressures to fail structurally |
| |
|
|
They protect against
the intrusion of wind driven rain
that could enter and un-shuttered
broken window. |
| |
|
|
All of the above. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 32. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 33. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 34. |
In
case #17; John was a registered engineer
in: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Texas |
| |
|
|
Michigan |
| |
|
|
New Mexico |
| |
|
|
|
| 35. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 36. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 37. |
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 |
| |
|
|
|
| 38. |
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’s 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 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
