Structural Engineers & Architects...

[gratus fermentatio]

1st off, I'm neither engineer nor architect, but I'm curious about something. Here's my question: Is there any reason why a building 1 cubic mile in size couldn't be constructed? I've been thinking about this off & on for quite a while now & haven't found a firm answer yet.

In theory, an entire small town could be contained within such a structure. I'd guess 10,000 to 15,000 or so residents, complete with shopping, medical services, schools, parking, library, entertainment, etc...
Add a good mass transit system & a great location, I think it would be a winner.
Regards, GF.

 

[agrazela]

Been watching Dr. Strangelove?

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Considering the tallest building in the world is only half that height, I think you would have trouble making a foundation and lower floors strong enough to withstand all that weight above them.

However, I'm only an electrical engineer and the son of an architect, so while I have rudimentary knowledge in this sort of thing, I'll defer to any actual structural engineers on this.

 

[JohnK93]

One cubic mile could also be a very long building, only a couple of stories high. According to Wikipedia, the most voluminous building in the world is 472 million cubic feet. A building one cubic mile in volume would be about 147.2 billion cubic feet, or 312 times larger.

In theory, I don't see why it couldn't be done. If you're thinking what I'm thinking, that would be one huge brewery!

John

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

One cubic mile could also be a very long building, only a couple of stories high.

Fair point, but I can only assume by the context that OP was asking about a mile cubed, not just a cubic mile.

 

[Beernik]

I'm a civil/environmental engineer. Mostly water resources stuff.

The problem with going vertically a mile is the amount if mass and density of material you would need at the bottom to support the structure at the top. It would be difficult to design something that wouldn't crush itself under it's own weight.

Even then, you would have to build it on bedrock. Otherwise, you'd collapse the soil under the building.

As for the area, you would basically have to design it as several smaller buildings with zero-lot lines. The footings and columns wouldn't be an issue. But a ceiling that big and continuous would have thermal expansion problems. You would need a way for the ceiling to expand and contract without creating gaps or pushing into each other.

Of course it would be a pain in the butt to provide utilities to a building like that. At a 0.5% slope, a sewer line would drop 26 feet across the building. You'd need internal pump stations or a vacuum system with holding pits.

And how many HVAC units would you need to move that much air?

You'd need 8" or 10" water pipes for fire sprinklers in case the interior of the building caught fire.

 

[gratus fermentatio]

Bingo, 1 mile cubed. Mile high, mile long & a mile wide. I was thinking the structure might not be able to support it's own weight, much less all the added weight of the occupants. Though I've read about proposed mile tall bldgs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_tall_buildings_and_structures
Most are the tall, thin, "skyscraper" type of bldg. I was thinking if such a small footprint could support such a structure, then wouldn't a structure with a larger footprint be able to spread out that weight? Maybe more of a modified trapeziodal shape would provide better support? Like I said, I'm no engineer, I'm just a guy who was thinking about stuff I've read.
Regards, GF.