Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've seen that, we were invited to bid the project at work. I still don't know if I'd trust it...."oops the tsunami was 6' taller than engineers expected"
I know they also have sirens and systems in place to evacuate, so it's assumed most would be able to get out but the losses of homes and everything else would be what they would be. Washington is full of risk from floods to volcanoes to earthquakes, so we are all playing the odds more or less. I tend to point these out because **** happens, and better to be educated and prepared than ignorant and become a victim.
If you look at the second video, you'll see that the towers are covered, the roof has sides (to stop people from being swept off, I presume), and it has a bunch of piles sunk into the ground.
I'm guessing that tsunami insurance is available. Should be cheaper than Hurricane insurance, since it has only happened every 300 to 500 years.
If you look at the second video, you'll see that the towers are covered, the roof has sides (to stop people from being swept off, I presume), and it has a bunch of piles sunk into the ground.
I'm guessing that tsunami insurance is available. Should be cheaper than Hurricane insurance, since it has only happened every 300 to 500 years.
Yes I saw that, I was more referring to the power and speed of the tsunami still smashing it flat. There has to be a design limit on what it can take. Water has tremendous power.
Yes I saw that, I was more referring to the power and speed of the tsunami still smashing it flat. There has to be a design limit on what it can take. Water has tremendous power.
Quote:
The geotechnical conditions at the site include sandy soils and a high water table. Had the project faced only seismic liquefaction, the engineers might have chosen a mat or grade-beam foundation. But the tsunami hazards led the engineering team to specify a deep foundation of auger-cast piles, 24 in. in diameter, the deepest extending approximately 50 ft.
"We [had] to consider earthquake-induced liquefaction. That was a significant driver for the foundation selection, in addition to considering the scouring affect that happens with tsunamis," Ash says. "The flowing water will erode those soils and can expose the foundations. [So] the foundation had to be designed to resist first the design earthquake and then what we call the design tsunami."
Both are significant events. Research indicates that the Cascadia Subduction Zone is capable of a magnitude 9 earthquake with a 2,500-year return period. Detailed modeling of the site indicated that an earthquake of that magnitude would likely create a 14 ft deep inundation zone around the school site. The fact that the site is 25 ft above sea level and slightly inland reduced the impact somewhat.
"The materials we chose were largely informed by how buildings performed in the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami," Ash explains. "We saw that the concrete buildings, by far, performed the best, followed…by steel buildings. Concrete has an inherent combination of strength and ductility. Even if it does get a little bit damaged, it still has the ability to carry its gravity loads. That was pretty appealing to us for the primary lateral system."
The key structural element for the gymnasium and safe refuge are four massive concrete stairwell towers at the corners, leading to the safe zone on the roof. The concrete shear walls of the towers are 14 in. thick, reinforced concrete, and they form lateral force-resisting system for the structure. A series of 10 steel columns support the roof. Concerned about possible debris damage to those columns, the engineering team specified bolstering them in two ways. "First, we encased them in concrete to toughen the flanges," Ash says. "But then we also have a moment-resisting, beam-to-column connection above there so that if any one of those columns on either side of the building were damaged or destroyed, the framing above it would be able to bridge over that and carry the roof—without one of those columns in place. That's how we dealt with trying to avoid progressive collapse."
The one-story gymnasium wing didn't need to be raised to accommodate the required elevation for a safe refuge on the roof; the height that was already required to house the functions was sufficient. The structure is designed to accommodate 1,000 people, and has the capacity to handle live loads of 100 psf via a concrete slab atop a metal deck, supported by steel, wide-flange beams.
Yes I saw that, I was more referring to the power and speed of the tsunami still smashing it flat. There has to be a design limit on what it can take. Water has tremendous power.
Watching the Tsunami from the Japan quake, I think those right on the coast were way better off than those who were inland. They just had to deal with water. Get up high enough, and watch... The places inland across that wide plain, had to endure the water, AND the WALL of debris that had been picked up. It became unstoppable.
How did the area fair during the Japanese earthquake?
Down here in CA we had to deal with a good 2 foot plus wave.
Doesn’t sound like much but it really rattled the marinas even inside SF bay.
A 6 foot wave would be devastating.
Ocean Shores was originally built as a master-planned resort community with luxury homes and golf courses in the 1960's. My parents were interested and we visited a couple of times so they could sit through some "hard-sell" sessions, (similar to timeshares today). Fortunately, they didn't bite. The area never grew into the developers "vision". Today, you get a lot of lower income homes, a weak commercial structure with a couple of smaller grocers and a few restaurants, and a few older hotels. There are some higher end homes, but they are the minority.
As for "driving on the beach"...well, if it were not for that, we would not have ever had this classic police chase from the movie "McQ", starring John Wayne filmed just north of Ocean Shores in 1973.
I lived in the Seattle area for 25 years and we roamed all over the state and wore out a few RVs. I loved ocean shores and did since first going there in 92. We left an RV in a park in Copalis Beach for a number of years until the owner died and then we moved on. We liked it so much that we drove 3 1/2 hours from the Index area to ocean shores every weekend from June to October for 4 summers. Sometimes Friday night was a 5-6 hours ordeal back in those days and we left at 5am Monday morning to avoid Sunday traffic.
Great place, lots of other wonderful places in Western Washington that we started going to after the park we liked closed but always went back to ocean shores a lot. Ocean Shores is the absolute closest ocean spot from the Seattle area and I like the ocean. The sound is great but its not the ocean.
Another thing about the area is that you can run up the coast toward Port Angeles and that entire point is really nice if you are into backpacking and such. The beaches also start getting much more dramatic (like oregon) once you get a half hour north of Copalis Beach.
Not sure why Ocean Shores gets the wrath it does on these boards. I do get that jobs are hard and if you lived there you could find yourself having to go to Olympia for work if you lost your professional type job and had to find another one and there just wasn't any openings. That would suck but it is doable for a bit while you keep looking. There are jobs though for things like retail, construction, government etc just not a lot prob at one time.
Westport I have spent some time in as well and rented condos, done the local art show (pottery) twice and done some guide fishing trips out of the marina. Its OK but never really warmed up to it as much. The beaches are hard to spend time on as you have to lug everything in and the town seems really down on its luck all the time. That said though I do still like it just not as much as OS. We moved back home to Texas a few years ago and I recently bought a van to convert and looking for an OS jetty lot to use as home base every summer. They allow 90 camping on the lots and that's unusual and although you can get away with camoing on other lots around the area its a crap shoot. Lots of great camping all over and we can arrive and depart from ocean shores. The month of September is fantastic with weather great and crowds gone.
People just like different things and many of the things some people hate about Ocean Shores area is part of what I like (driving on beach, small beachy town etc). In Texas people say the same things about our beach towns. Beach towns that attract tourist and retirees just have a certain character about them and some people just don't like them. They prefer sleepy coastal towns that don't attract outsiders. I kind of peg Westport like that and since the fishing fleet (over 300 boats back in the day) is down to a handful of sport fishing charters it is really not thriving, just kind of hanging in. Aberdeen is a case. It was always about logging and in 40 years it just has never seemed to find a new identity. Always very poor area it seemed when we drover through and I always figured the entire harbor area would hit stride some day but it really is pretty much the same as it was back in the 90s when we started going.
Last edited by scwhite2003; 08-24-2020 at 01:58 PM..
I lived in the Seattle area for 25 years and we roamed all over the state and wore out a few RVs. I loved ocean shores and did since first going there in 92. We left an RV in a park in Copalis Beach for a number of years until the owner died and then we moved on. We liked it so much that we drove 3 1/2 hours from the Index area to ocean shores every weekend from June to October for 4 summers. Sometimes Friday night was a 5-6 hours ordeal back in those days and we left at 5am Monday morning to avoid Sunday traffic.
Great place, lots of other wonderful places in Western Washington that we started going to after the park we liked closed but always went back to ocean shores a lot. Ocean Shores is the absolute closest ocean spot from the Seattle area and I like the ocean. The sound is great but its not the ocean.
Another thing about the area is that you can run up the coast toward Port Angeles and that entire point is really nice if you are into backpacking and such. The beaches also start getting much more dramatic (like oregon) once you get a half hour north of Copalis Beach.
Not sure why Ocean Shores gets the wrath it does on these boards. I do get that jobs are hard and if you lived there you could find yourself having to go to Olympia for work if you lost your professional type job and had to find another one and there just wasn't any openings. That would suck but it is doable for a bit while you keep looking. There are jobs though for things like retail, construction, government etc just not a lot prob at one time.
Westport I have spent some time in as well and rented condos, done the local art show (pottery) twice and done some guide fishing trips out of the marina. Its OK but never really warmed up to it as much. The beaches are hard to spend time on as you have to lug everything in and the town seems really down on its luck all the time. That said though I do still like it just not as much as OS. We moved back home to Texas a few years ago and I recently bought a van to convert and looking for an OS jetty lot to use as home base every summer. They allow 90 camping on the lots and that's unusual and although you can get away with camoing on other lots around the area its a crap shoot. Lots of great camping all over and we can arrive and depart from ocean shores. The month of September is fantastic with weather great and crowds gone.
People just like different things and many of the things some people hate about Ocean Shores area is part of what I like (driving on beach, small beachy town etc). In Texas people say the same things about our beach towns. Beach towns that attract tourist and retirees just have a certain character about them and some people just don't like them. They prefer sleepy coastal towns that don't attract outsiders. I kind of peg Westport like that and since the fishing fleet (over 300 boats back in the day) is down to a handful of sport fishing charters it is really not thriving, just kind of hanging in. Aberdeen is a case. It was always about logging and in 40 years it just has never seemed to find a new identity. Always very poor area it seemed when we drover through and I always figured the entire harbor area would hit stride some day but it really is pretty much the same as it was back in the 90s when we started going.
Just strikes me as a depressing, white trash place. Very little good food beyond burgers. Most stores in tiny buildings. This place could be really nice and luxurious. It’s in a great location!
I see a new post here and that is great. Unfortunately this area is pretty dismal. Once a promising resort area last century, the area has not made much progress since. Who to blame? Well, perhaps nobody. It just doesn’t measure up to anything on the Oregon coast. Plus it is just plain boring from a coastal perspective. When Aberdeen is your feeder city you are in trouble.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
