9
Fullmetal Alchemist (2003) features a giant (and I mean stupidly big) cave under a large and busy metropolis. Nobody is aware of its existence, which means that at least since the city's founding (let's say 150 years) there must have been no subsidence of any kind.
What little I know of cave-ins tells me this is rather unlikely, but for story-reasons I need to know how shallow I can make it before shit starts falling down.
The cave is unsupported by any columns, and there is a very large space from the floor to the roof (perhaps 80-100m). The floor diameter is about 2-3km. [pic]
The cave was formed by wild magic, so the erosion/seepage found in karst caves need not be an issue.
The time period is equivalent to early 20th century, and there is some light automobile traffic. My admittedly superficial research suggests that foundations in early 20th-century London were pretty shallow, so foundation depth is unlikely to have any impact.
A river runs around the outskirts but not through it. Earthquakes are unlikely.
The cave should run deeper than 4m (depth of sewers)
In this admittedly improbable scenario, my question is: What would be the minimum thickness for the cave ceiling so that, assuming ideal geological conditions, there is no risk of collapse under the weight of the city above?
RESEARCH
Sarawak chamber (Malaysia) is the largest known cave room (700x400m) with an unsupported roof span of 300m. No word on roof thickness.
Son Doong Cave (Vietnam) has the largest known passage. According to Wikipedia, it is 4.6 km long, 80m high and wide over most of its length, but over 140m high and wide for part of its length.
A very interesting paper on the small (<11m) man-made caves in the sandstone under Nottingham recommends a depth of >50% of the cave width, which is pretty damn deep. This is for flat roofs in karstic limestone (stronger than sandstone).
I am not familiar with "Fullmetal Alchemist", but is the roof flat or domed? Flat 3km wide roof would be scientifically impossible. – Alexander – 2017-07-18T22:23:36.903
That's what I thought... The roof isn't shown, but I'm assuming it's domed. From the linked pic it appears the floor may be bowed as well. (I'll revise my estimated diameter to 1.5km, for the sake of sanity. Probably won't help much.) – Notiophilus – 2017-07-18T22:42:17.540
1Dome-shaped cave will be stable and theoretically big enough for your scale. I don't know however what the maximum span-to-height ratio can be. 2:1 is definitely good. 6:1 (similar to arched bridges) maybe too aggressive. – Alexander – 2017-07-18T23:44:08.983
1a dome transfers pressure. the arch of the dome cannot stand by itself, it needs to transfer the vertical and the horizontal forces into the next possible planet. the thickness of the top of the arch, i.e. the thinnest point, can be next to zero, so given you need 4 meters anyway, you should be safe. The overall stability of your system is limited by how much compression the material near the sides and base of the cave can stand. – Burki – 2017-07-20T08:33:53.400
@Burki: Would a dome as you describe (~0cm high point, thicker elsewhere) support weight, though? E.g. I go and jump up and down on it. Do I fall through? I imagine that depends on the relative area of the shallow point / steepness of the dome, yes?
DAMN I've a very good book on structures and it's two thousand miles away.
Could you point me to somewhere that would help me understand the weight limits on domes? Searching for "dome weight limit", "dome strength" etc has led me to interesting explanations of stresses within the dome but nothing about how much you can stack on top of it. – Notiophilus – 2017-07-20T21:57:51.140
@Alexander: Thanks. So like a cave with a higher ceiling would be more stable, of course... which works out nicely, as I can just stretch my really fuzzy guess of the cave dimensions. – Notiophilus – 2017-07-20T21:58:42.740
2
You might be able to use a snowload calculator (while substituting the weight of snow with that of stone/dirt) to at least give you a lower bound on the weight above a geodesic dome, but that will put you into a catch 22 of playing with the weight/thickness. We don't stack stuff on domes, try arches.
– Mazura – 2017-07-21T00:18:32.7801@Notiophilus obviously a material thickness of 0 supports 0 weight. the rest depends on the material. a good first estimate is to sketch the setup, and look how the forces are led into the ground. if you can get vectors at 45° you are probably safe. for materials with high tensile strengts (very much UNLIKE rock) shallower angles can work. For more details, a civil engineer studies for years, for a reason :-) – Burki – 2017-07-21T06:54:16.750