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
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
posted by test at
9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home