Wonders of University of Toronto I: Demystification of the "sinking" Robarts Library

Wonders of University of Toronto I: Demystification of the "sinking" Robarts Library

Background:

For non-U of T students, the John P. Robarts Research Library contains the largest single collection of the University of Toronto (this is from the U of T website). I found the following on the "Science Daily" website (http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/Robarts_Library):

"Robarts Library is the library of the University of
Toronto. It is the second largest university library
in North America second only to Harvard's. The library
is named after former Ontario Premier John Robarts.

The library's main building is a large brutalist/futurist
concrete structure desgined to look like a peacock. It is
considered by many to be a great architectural achievement,
but others consider it hideous. "

According to the U of T News and Events website (http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bios/02/history51.htm), Robarts library is the length of a Canadian football field from goal post to goal post. "The library was officially opened in 1973 at a cost of over $40 million."

Introduction:

As you can guess easily, I'm a U of T student. (uh, I'm not challenging your IQ or anything, but if you couldn't deduce that from the previous section... please, don't admit to it.) First year in University, a lot of "kind" seniors warned me of the Robarts Library. Apparently, according to them, it's sinking slowly because the engineers/architects that designed the library didn't take into account of the weight of all the books that are in the library now. I've also heard different versions of the rumours about the architect/engineer:
1. The architect had very high expectations on the
appearance of the overall building (as you can recall, it's
supposed to look like a peacock), but blames from all sides
gave him a lot of pressure. He killed himself afterwards.
2. It was the Queens Engineers that performed all the necessary
calculations. So blame it on the Queens Engineers.
3. It was the Waterloo Engineers that did the calculations. So
blame the Waterloo Engineers.
I was only an "innocent", easily intimated frosh, so I believed in everything that I was told of, except that I sometimes wondered why these seniors still studied in the library when they know that it was sinking. One of my classmate even asked the Geology professor whether he's heard of the rumour or not. However, this young, prospective professor didn't know about it.

Discussion:

Before I begin, I think I should clarify the differences between architects and civil engineers. Architects design the aesthetics, appearance and general outline of the structure. (It is quite a scary thought that it is the architects that decide how many and where to put load supporting columns in a structure.) Civil Engineers, on the other hand, perform all the necessary calculation on the types of materials, thickness and strength of the concrete, the amount of reinforcement used, and etc. Occasionally architects may come up with some crazy designs, and civil engineers tell them that it's not going to stand. Therefore, there is already one blatant mistake in the rumour: if Robarts Library is really sinking, blame the engineers, not the architects.

I started doubting the reliability of this rumour in my 3rd year, partially because I didn't have any design courses till then. In my steel design and reinforce concrete courses, I had to deal with the National Building Code of Canada a lot. (By the way, you should've probably guessed that I'm a Civil Engineering student.)

In the Building Code (NBCC in short), it lists out a minimum value of required design loading for any types of buildings. In NBCC section 4.1.6.A, the uniformily distributed load shall be not less than the 7.2 kPa, applied uniformly over the entire area, or on any portions of the area, whichever produces the most critical effects in the members concerned. Just to give you an idea how big 7.2 kPa is, the designed loading indicated for lecture halls is only 2.4 kPa. NBCC is very conservative with all the specified loadings and conditions, with all the safety factors that are incorporated into the design formulas, you can be assured that most buildings are safe and some of them are overly designed. (Notice how I used "most" not "all" in the previous sentence.) However, if any building fails, it is indeed the engineers' mistakes or the contractors' faults for not carrying out a quality job.

Another thing that perplexed me is that, if Robarts Library is really sinking, how can I not see any cracks near the ground surface. And if it's sinking, the government will terminate its service to ensure people's safety. My little theory was only brewing in my head and didn't get confirmed until this year.

So finally, in my 4th year, some "official" figure made some comments on the Robarts Library sinking issue. He told us, including all the reasonings I stated above, that Robarts Library is NOT SINKING. (I hear the drums~~~~) My professor is quite an interesting character. He actually made his students check the columns in the new Bahen Center against buckling. And yes, we are again assured that those columns, although slender, are not going to buckle. Buckling is a member geometric behavior when it's trying to shade the large axial compressive force by deforming. You can try this by exerting vertical force along the length of a ruler. The "bending" of the ruler is called buckling. (btw, I'm not responsible if you break your ruler.) Any slight deformation/bending of the columns are undesirable. You might not know that the Quebec Bridge failure is due to buckling of a truss member. That is also why Canadian Engineering graduates are wearing iron rings now. It is to remind them (or only Civil Engineers) to check for buckling in a slender member taken a large compressive load.

Conclusion:

Robarts Library is not sinking. The weights of the volumes, and all the affiliating loads were taken into the original design. Therefore, U of T students can continue safely study/sleep in the library. But indeed, I have to say that it really does look ugly.

Ellen Yeh
12/11/2003

Wonders of University of Toronto II: The "Energy Efficient" Bahen Centre of Information Technology?!

Wonders of University of Toronto II: The "Energy Efficient" Bahen Centre of Information Technology?!

Introduction:

The Bahen [pronounced as “BAIN”] Centre of Information Technology (BA in short) belongs to the University of Toronto. It is the new headquarter of Engineering Science and the Electrical and Computer Engineering departments even though Mr. Bahen is a Civil Engineer. Unfortunately, this does not mean that all Civil Engineers are freaking rich. It only applies to Civil undergraduates in the 60’s and 70’s when the construction business was flourishing.

BA is newly constructed (2000~2002). Some of you may wonder why they even bother to keep an ancient structure (the former Varsity office) in the middle of the new BA building. This is because the Varsity office is old enough to be considered a historic treasure and by Canadian legislature, not only that no one can touch it but also it has to be maintained. So BA was constructed to accommodate the increase in the number of students due to double cohorts and to implement some state-of-the-art high-tech laboratories.

Discussion:

The original design of BA is such that it is energy efficient and is compatible with the latest technology. However, “design” is just design, or why would I be writing this now? ;)

1. One “extraordinary” feature of BA is its use of Single Glazed Windows. (Single glazed means that it only has one glass pane.) I am sure you’re pretty familiar with the winters in Toronto. With an average January temperature of –10 degree Celsius, it sounds like a brilliant idea to put in single glazed windows. Windows, aside from its connection to the beautiful sceneries of the outside world, are to act as weather and noise barriers. The thermal resistance of single glazed windows are so HIGH that it costs $1800 per season to just heat the office of the Engineering Science department head. With an outside temperature of –10 degree Celsius and an inside temperature of 23 degree Celsius, the surface temperature on the inboard side of the window glass is around 7 degree Celsius. Imagining you sitting beside one such window with the natural convection of air drafting heat from you and you radiating heat to the window, I doubt you can work all day without freezing to death. Last year for some period of time, the poor lady of the office had to move to some other offices to work. To the architects’ pleasure, large area of the building surface is covered with single glazed windows for the modern look and aesthetic appeal. And because the windows usually have very low surface temperature, it is exceptionally brittle. If there is any load, no matter how small it can be, the window glass can crack. I sometimes see cracks on the windows. (Hm…BA as an energy efficient structure. I wonder~~~)

2. The supporting beams of the old glass canopy outside the main entrance on St. George Street were just recently replaced with steel. The supporting beams were composed of 3 panes of the glass, and the middle pane shattered from time to time all last year. The canopy is to protect people from unexpected weather conditions. Having the replace the glass frequently is just undesirable. The university had been trying to find out the real cause of the glass cracking. They first thought it cracked because the bolts through the glasses transmit loads to the glass, causing the brittle material to crack. By making the bolts and the bolt holes more fitting didn’t solve the problem. They also tried many other methods, but they all failed. My professor talked to one of the contractors when they were called in to fix the problem. The contractor told my prof what he thought the cause was, whatever he was doing at the time wouldn’t solve the problem. My prof asked why he didn’t tell the university people. All he got was a shrug and “uh~~~I don’t know” (a typical modern weasel, for Dilbert lovers ; ) ). My prof, of course, had his own theories. He, as well, didn’t tell the university people, partially because the university people rarely listen to him (like the tilting foundation of the Cook House at Survey Camp.) My prof finally told us at the end of the term. The glass is green, which is good at absorbing heat. Because the middle pane of the glass beam composite absorbed less heat, with differential thermal expansion, the middle pane was squeezed and hence it cracked. The university fixed the problem by replacing the beams with the super tough steel. Our safety is ensured anyways.

3. Did you ever notice that the air ducts of BA are on the floor? (Guys, next time you’re in the computer lab, look for girls wearing skirts. ;) ) People are not standing on the concrete slabs. The air ducts, CALBE DUCTS and all the mechanical pipes are between the floor and the concrete slabs. The ceilings can then be left bare and this saves some money. With the whole building going WIRELESS the cable ducts are left empty, which are perfect residents for mice. Mice problems have been very serious since the completion of the building.

4. There are also many other mechanical problems with BA, for example, the elevators sometimes work and sometimes DON’T. (Some unofficial source told me that a group of OT2’s peeed at various spots in the building when it was still under construction. This can be why some of the electrical units don’t function properly.) The 1200 series lecture rooms are sometimes too hot. With regards to the structural aspects of BA, I don’t have many comments except that the columns in the atrium are safe from buckling. (This was checked by one of my professors.) One thing I really don’t like about the building is that the hall ways sometimes don’t connect. It is very annoying to have to walk all the way around when you can easily jump to your destination in 30 seconds (I’m not encouraging you to try this by the way.).

Conclusion:
The University of Toronto generates its own electricity (the power generation plant is just right beside BA). I guess they don’t really care if any of the buildings aren’t energy efficient since energy is relatively cheap. Also to Civil Engineers if you want to make future donations to the university, design the buildings as well. All the university structures are expected to be in service for a long time (the University College has been there for 175 years). I’m a bit reserved about BA on that.

Some interesting thoughts:
1. It stroke me for the first time while I was preparing for my Building Science final exam that I’m studying REAL WINDOWS for the first time (as opposed to Microsoft Windows). :)
2. 我似乎可以看見20年後, 我的教授坐在搖椅內, 一邊翹著腳, 一邊摸著鬍鬚笑著說:”果然不出我所料~~~”
3. Engineers really love to use "Point Forms".

Ellen Yeh
2003/12/19 2:04AM on an airplane

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Hu's (burningtyger@hotmail.com) Response:
1. Windows

This is so true. The standard windows in Toronto have double layer. It is either done by 2 windows (like the window at my apartment), or by 2 layers of glass (like the windows in New College). Having double layer shields the building from outside noise and heat loss. And yeah, my cubicle is next to a wide area with windows on 3 sides. I can confirm that the area is extremely hot during summer, and extremely cold during winter.

2. Glass canopy

Not really any comment on this, but yeah, I blame the architect...

3. Air ducks

Well, the air flow from the air duct isn't really strong enough to blow skirts. I know there are not really any girls in my cubicle to test this, but during the summer when the room was extremely hot (the air con. doesn't work), I have to actually remove the cover at the air duct to increase the air flow, and even that doesn't increase much. (To all guys, the best place is the area at the backdoor of BA. It is like the air exhaust of BA, and blows hot air out constantly. It's a great place to smoke cigarette during cold winter, and great place to see unsuspected girls with miniskirts :p. Now to all girls, why don't you join engineering, and wear miniskirts?)

As for mice problem. I CAN CONFIRM THIS. My TA prof, Prof. Zukotynski, was in the safty committe of BA. He said that when the building first opened, there were really serious problem with mice and racoon. It was so serious that he even considered shutting the building down. He said that they eventually manage to eliminate the racoon, but mice problem still remained, though not as bad as before. However, I practically lived in BA now, and I have yet seen any mice.

4. Mechanical Problem

Hehee... yeah, to the "unconfirmed source", someone "pee"ed on the elevator, and supposely it even caught on fire. However, another friend suggested that because BA is in public sector, it was required by law to use only Canadian company, that's why it sucked...

Another problem, what's with the light on the floor. First, they serve no purpose but blind the eye. Second they get really hot, and would actually melt your shoes if you stand on it for too long. Third, they don't work. Half of them burned out within half a year.

And yes, the hallway was really long for no good reason. I have to walk like 2 minutes to just go to the washroom from my cubicle on my floor. It is actually faster for me to go down to 3rd floor and use the washroom there, then come back up with the elevator.

And as for the washroom, BA has these supposely "High Tech" handicap washrooms. First, there is no "physical" indication that the door is locked. So you have to push the door to test it, but then you never know if it somehow get unlocked later. Second, the light outside the washroom doesn't work half of the time. So while you are doing your busines, you'd hear people trying to open the door. And knowing that there is no way you can confirm if the door is locked or not, as mentioned in point one, it can lead to consitipation. And finally, the most serious problem. THE WASHROOM UNLOCKS ITSELF AFTER ~15 minutes. It gave you no warning. It just unlocks. This, to me, is the most shitty design (Don't ask me why I'd stay in there for longer than 15 minutes let's just say I got lazy and didn't really want to go back to work...)


5. Conclusion

My conclusion is, let's start a new urban legand, saying that BA will sink because the architect was retared that it didn't consider the weight of geeky engineers who carry 5kg of textbook all the time. And we have all the above example to prove how the architects of BA were idiots.

>Some interesting thoughts:
>1. It stroke me for the first time while I was preparing for
>my Building Science final exam that I was studying REAL WINDOWS
>for the first time (as opposed to Microsoft Windows). : )

Well, just like Microsoft Windows have soo much memory leak, the BA windows have soo much heat leak.. hehee..