The table provides select information for buildings designed to Risk

Question

Project IR Butler 2019-20 - Get one IR Question Everyday
Question # 330, Date : 27-Aug-2020
This post is a part of Project IR Butler 2019-20. Click here for Details

The table provides select information for buildings designed to Risk Category (RC) II seismic design requirements functioning as tsunami refuges of last resort on the U.S. Pacific Coast. Equivalence between seismic capacity and the demand associated with tsunami inundation depth at a given location is termed the parity height. The maximum inundation depth is based on the tsunami hazard at the site, and the threshold height is the height of the building needed to provide adequate freeboard above inundation. In any given community, existing buildings that are taller than the required threshold height might be considered for vertical evacuation refuge. Locations in the table where the parity height is less than the threshold height are locations where taller existing buildings would be expected to be adequate for the loads associated with the anticipated tsunami inundation depth. At locations of extreme tsunami loading, RC II buildings are not recommended as refuges of last resort.

City	State	Maximum Inundation Depth (ft)	Steel Moment Frame	Concrete Shear Wall	Threshold Height for RC II Buildings	Extreme Tsunami Loading Location
			Parity Height between Tsunami Load & Seismic Capacity (ft)
Crescent City	CA	19	15	15	35	No
Cannon Beach	OR	57	> 85	> 85	70	No
Eureka	CA	14	< 10	< 10	30	No
Haleiwa	HI	61	> 85	> 85	75	Yes
Hilo	HI	72	> 85	> 85	85	Yes
Honolulu	HI	24	35	20	40	No
Kahului	HI	60	> 85	> 85	75	Yes
Long Beach	WA	47	> 85	85	60	No
Newport	OR	18	15	15	30	No
Ocean Shores	WA	14	20	20	30	No
Port Hueneme	CA	5	< 10	< 10	25	No
Santa Cruz	CA	14	< 10	< 10	30	No
Seaside	OR	40	60	60	55	No
Seattle	WA	20	20	20	35	No

(Sort ↕ the table by clicking on the headers)

For each of the following RC II existing building descriptions, select Sufficient if the described building would be an acceptable tsunami refuge of last resort based on the information provided. Otherwise, select Not sufficient.

Sufficient	Not sufficient
		A 75-foot building in Cannon Beach, O
		A 35-foot building in Newport, OR
		A 90-foot building in Haleiwa, HI

Submit Answer

Start the Timer above, select the radio buttons, and click "Submit" to add this question to your Error log.

Show Answer

Official Answer

A 75-foot building in Cannon Beach, O: Not sufficient

A 35-foot building in Newport, OR: Sufficient

A 90-foot building in Haleiwa, HI: Not sufficient

srishti246 · Answer

Can somebody explain why is first option not sufficient?

Mona2019 · Answer

I am stuck with this question too. Need some help.
 Sajjad1994  could you please help with the OE.

Posted from my mobile device

Mona2019 · Answer

IMO,

If the parity height is less than the threshold height, then the building has to suffice the threshold height .
2. So in Newport, a 35 ft building is sufficient

1. 75 foot building in Cannon Beach is not sufficient because though it suffices the threshold height, it does not suffice the parity height.

3. It is not sufficient because the premise of the question states :At locations of extreme tsunami loading, RC II buildings are not recommended as refuges of last resort.
And 3 is extreme tsunami location

Posted from my mobile device

pearrrrrrr · Answer

Sajjad1994  could you please provide official explanation?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

OE is not available. Below, I tried to explain it a bit. I hope this will help.

Read the information given in the question. Read it and understand it.

Statement 1:  A 75-foot building in Cannon Beach would not be acceptable because 75 feet is taller than the threshold height for RC II buildings, and the parity height is also greater than 70 (the threshold height).

Answer: Not sufficient

Statement 2:  A 35-foot building in Newport, OR is acceptable because it has a lower parity height between tsunami load & seismic capacity (ft) than the threshold height.

Answer: Sufficient

Statement 3: A 90-foot building in Haleiwa, HI in an extreme tsunami loading location would not be acceptable.

Answer: Not sufficient

pearrrrrrr · Answer

Thank you so much for your explanation Sajjad1994 one thing to be confirmed.. so there are 3 required factors to consider a building an acceptable tsunami refuge 1. the building must be taller than threshold 2. parity < threshold 3. Extreme Tsunami Loading Location must be "NO" in the last column Am I correct? From your explanation, I'm curious on the Statement 1: A 75-foot building in Cannon Beach would not be acceptable because 75 feet is taller than the threshold height for RC II buildings, and t he parity height is also greater than 70 (the threshold height) . I understand the green text but for the red texts, I thought building taller than the threshold height would be acceptable. Anyways, the green text makes the answer for this statement "Not sufficient" just curious on the reason behind the answer

Anugmat740 · Answer

From the table a RC II building to be selected as Tsunami Refugees has to follow below conditions:

1. Existing Building Height > Required Threshold Height
2. Parity Height < Threshold Height
3. Extreme Tsunami Loading Location has to be "No"

1) A 75-foot building in Cannon Beach,
75 > 70 (Threshold Height)
>85(Parity Height) < 70(Threshold Height)- Not True.
Not sufficient.

2) A 35-foot building in Newport, OR
35 > 30 (Threshold Height)
15(Parity Height) < 30(Threshold Height)
Extreme Tsunami Loading Location = "No"
Sufficient.

3) A 90-foot building in Haleiwa, HI
90 > 75 (Threshold Height)
>85(Parity Height) < 90(Threshold Height)- May or may not be true.
Extreme Tsunami Loading Location = "Yes"
Not sufficient.

bumpbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club BumpBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The table provides select information for buildings designed to Risk

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards