A BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering Capstone Project by :

1. Seattle Temple:Bearing Column Replacement • A BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering Capstone Project by: • Charles Connors, Andrew Luna, and Jonathon Archer • Parallel Engineering

2. Where is the column we are replacing?

3. Existing Condition The column is currently located in a less than ideal spot.

4. Existing Condition View from the chapel The Problem The chapel in the baptistry of the LDS Seattle Temple has large column in the center of the view to the font.

5. Fourth Points View from the chapel Proposed Solution #1: Short Span Our proposed solution is to move the column load out to two smaller columns six feet in from the outside walls.

6. Full Span View from the chapel Proposed Solution #2: Long Span The column might also be supported by a much heavier beam that would span from wall to wall.

8. Short Span 3D View

9. Column Loads • The un-factored loads on the structure are: • Dead: 135.7 kips • Live: 81.5 kips • Snow: 2.3 kips • Rain: 12 kips • Earthquake (-Y): 1557 kips • Earthquake (+Y): 1387 kips • A shear wall above the column is imposing very large earthquake loads. These loads obviously govern our design. Calculations of these loads are shown on the following slides.

10. Seismic Loading • Based on the pertinent seismic design criteria, we calculated and distributed a base shear force. The base shear force approximates the effects of a seismic event on the building.

11. Diaphragm Distribution • Based on the stiffness of the individual wall segments, the earthquake forces were distributed to each of the walls. The diaphragm was assumed to be rigid and torsional moments were included in the analysis. • The shear wall in question had a maximum shear force of 475 kips.

12. Shear Wall Overturning Moment The compression/tension reactions required to prevent the shear wall from overturning are calculated to be 1557 kips. By summing moments about bottom right corner; Total earthquake effects are: Using Load combinations #5&6 our total column forces are:

13. Beam Options Proposed Solution #1: Short span Proposed solution #2: Long spaN Beam Length: 29 ft. Beam Depth: 26.5 in. Beam Weight: 23 kips. Service Load Deflection: 0.281 in. Deflection ratio: L/1200 • Beam Length: 13ft. • Beam Depth: 26.5in. • Beam Weight: 5.4 kips. • Service Load Deflection: 0.04in. • Deflection ratio: L/3900

14. Existing Column to Beam Connection • A connection with adequate tension capacity was designed to connect the new beam to the existing column from above.

15. Foundation Column & Footing • Column Size: 24 in. X 24 in. X 12 ft. • Footing Size: 7.0 ft. X 7.0 ft. X 2 ft. 3 in.

16. Removing Existing Wall Foundation

17. Constructability – Long Span (29ft.) • The long beam option cannot be maneuvered into place without significant changes to the laundry room. Removing walls adjoining the engineer’s offices is not an option because they contain concrete shear walls. Baptistry

18. Constructability – Short Span (13ft.) • The shorter beam option can be maneuvered into place simply by moving the large tables in the laundry room. It is also 16 kips lighter.

19. Cost Estimate - Short Span

20. Questions?