1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Apply Seasteading Concrete Shell Structures

Home Forums Archive Structure Designs Apply Seasteading Concrete Shell Structures

This topic contains 162 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 3 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 163 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11256
    Profile photo of Farmer
    Farmer
    Participant

    .

    It is for a good reason that when you are out on the ocean you have an “empty horizon” – have you ever thought why Nature never developed a surface swimming animal? all animals living in the high seas are submerged or flying- maybe this is so because the surface is just not a great place to live on.

    This a a very good, almost inarguable point.

    #11344
    Profile photo of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    To make educated guesses at costs, we have to start with a shell, designed for its’ environment. Wall thickness of a concrete shell will be dependant upon several factors… 1) vessel displacement; 2) vessel shape; 3) depth of use. None of these is more important than the others, just that they determine the needed platform, thus the shell design and cost.

    First, we need a set of basic wall thicknesses, based on reliable calculations… For small, medium and large vessels, based on surface/semi-submersible use and for middle depths and bottom(call it 11 miles plus a safety margine, so calculate deep sea as about 15 miles…).

    A spherical design is naturally stronger than a shape with points. Next best is geodesic structures,… A hemi-spherical habitat on the bottom will be able to withstand more than a box… A boat-shape for the surface allows for better use of power and currents. An ovoid/cigar-shape would be better for middle depths and transport from bottom to surface…

    Those are my opinions, based on my woefully inadequate understanding of the things we are trying to accomplish. Understood is that wall-thickness for a sub that serves the bottom would be the same as the bottom structure… In Ferrocement, my understanding is that 30% of the total volume of the shell should be steel…

    An added problem is buoyancy chambers, as currently required for most vessels… This increases the total volume of the vessel, but needs to be added before calculating the hull displacement and thickness, so as to not take away from the living space, or margine of safety…

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #11349

    To make a educated guess on cost you have to run a small scale pilot project, see the total project cost and divide the “squaremeters created” by the total cost. If you do so you will find that other factors like “cost of building space”, “workforce cost”, are the dominating cost factors.

    At European Submarine Structures AB we have run several projects, the 20 ton prototype, the 200 ton hull for Ian, floating element series production, floating docks, floating platforms, etc… What comes out as general number is 331 Euro per cubic meter of enclosed submersible living space which can be translated to real estate terms if you calculate3 2,5 cubic meter (2,5 m room height) is equivalent to 1 squaremeter of space in a city apartment.

    Surface floating structures have less shell thickness but more structural needs due to wave action so at the end the cost factor is practically the same in squaremeter and cubic meter for surface floats and submerged structures. In any case it is by far below the suggested 300USD/ squarefeeet (9 squarefeet =1squaremeter) handled currently by TSI .

    A habitat on the bottom is not the first choice as it is a lot more complicated to build than a free floating habitat. It is logical to use a round mainframe that bases at the structural element and strength of an arch although “box shapes” with non curved walls have been performed in tunnels and bridge pylons down to 70 m depth maximum.

    Other than expected a submerged structure needs less buoyancy chambers than a freight ship as you can work with removable ballast (sand).

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11380

    snowmeow, multiple leg structures have been suggested

    The problem of such structures is that they create a “elevated platform at elevated cost” this is ok when you drill for oil where cost does not matter that much – but it is no OK when “housing” is the purpose.

    If you want a mass movement out to sea you need to create living spaces at a housing cost that the average guy can afford. Most people can not afford to live in the city center because of the elevated squaremeter cost – so when you create squaremeters at sea at a cost that is far above living cost in city centers you will never get a massive movement to the sea.

    Some special segments like billionairs already live on megayachts on the ocean. This fact is just society irrelevant as long as it is a small (irrelevant) society segment. So as long as seasteading is unaffordable for wide society segments it is just pointless. Either we lower the squaremeter cost to average housing cost or we stay in the millionair toy segment .

    Complicated engineered Structures are expensive so we can not do things like “glorified cruise ship condos” or “oil rig condos”, “flip ships”, “casino rigs”, etc…etc… – their cost is way above USD 120/person/day – and that is prohibitive. What is left is flat raft concrete shell structures (simple raft float) and “semisubmerged living space bubbles” – those are concepts that have proved to be “doable” at a price of 331 Euro/ cubic meter living space. Creating living space by optimizing costs with efficient series production we have a realistic chance to make seasteading available for the average guy at suburban housing costs.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11745

    Pastor_Jason wrote:

    Been lurking off and on for several months. I pursued Wil (Ellmer) last year regarding the concrete subs. 331 per ton of displacement is a great cost. Once this option became available I began to set my budgets on it, as clearly it is the best current solution that is in active use right now. I’m not a fan of large scale solutions… they will pop up once many of us use small scale single family solutions to float.

    While my business is being adjusted to function in a floating lifestyle I am begining to gather my resources to make the ‘plunge’ into submersible living. I am posting today to encourage Wil… your solution works. I for one will be joining you soon in real seasteading rather than just talking about it on forums. Which is why I cut back to lurking… concrete subs were the answer I was looking for. Sea-steading isn’t a mental exercise, it’s a real need. When one is in need, one stops looking once a solution is found.

    My concern is for my children. They will grow up floating. When it is time for them to go off on their own, how difficult will it be to send them off on their own sub without having to make landfall? I’ll have to purchase the steel ( no floating method of developing this that I’ve heard of). I can create cement using naturally available substances, then mix it with sand gathered in the shallows to produce concrete. Computers, engines and the like will also have to be sourced from a land business until enough of us float to make some real industry.

    I recall our conversations regarding your techniques and know this is not the place to discuss them. However I’d be curious for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on whether you think you’d be able to replicate those techniques afloat if you had the proper equipment and space. I can see a grand party every year as thousands of sub-steads congregate around Cartagena to trade, take up sand and build the next generation of subs while the weather is seasonally calm.

    Might even call it “Celebre el Dia Fundador Wil” or something… =)

    Live Well!

    Jason, sorry for the late response – floating building is just the most elegant key to almost anything – reduce third party entaglement of your project, deepwater channel access, scantling waterfront legislation, movement cost of heavy big sized structures, shipyard and drydock cost, in fact my original interest in seasteading came from my own need to develop floating installations to move my projects forward and the costs down.

    The short answer is “Yes” it is not only a possibility i consider it a MUST for a concrete shell structure exceeding the 20m / 200 ton size.

    How can it be done ? – 2 ways come to mind – Like the rion-antirion bridge pylon, or rafting up small modules to bigger floating structures.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine structures AB

    #11768
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    I’ve seen your video of the internals of the 200 ton displacement sub your working on. I hope his financing is working out. I anticipate a need in excess of 200 ton displacement. I’ve even considered purchase of a russian diesel sub (military grade, but with torpedo tubes cemented shut) which have been going surprisingly cheap.

    In all likelihood, I’d be looking to invest in the production of this substead in 1-2 years. Though I’d like to be a part of the solution for the masses, my personal plan will be a bit more costly then a standard substead. Once a group of us develops, smaller steads will be fine as the community can provide solutions where a single vessel will require more space to accomplish.

    Might even go halves on the floating drydock/construction facility with you if you want a (mostly) silent partner.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11778

    Jason, Ians project is going fine, we are in budget. A russian diesel boat has very little living space inside – at the end it is a weapon sistem and built as such not for accomodation – convert it into a habitat is like convert a destroyer into a yacht. The conversion is probably much more expensive than a new build.

    So i am sure you will be better with a substead.

    Let me hear your thoughts for cooperation …

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #12343
    Profile photo of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    4 km of tree trunk thick plastic. OMG. so let me pull out my geometry notes here… we’ll say a tree trunk is .75m thick. V=pi*r^2*h. V= 1766.25 cubic meters of special plastic. dude man im broke. thats just one of how many lines?

    #12355

    shredder7753 wrote:

    4 km of tree trunk thick plastic. OMG. so let me pull out my geometry notes here… we’ll say a tree trunk is .75m thick. V=pi*r^2*h. V= 1766.25 cubic meters of special plastic. dude man im broke. thats just one of how many lines?

    Yes that is a fine observation – if you do ANYTHING in city size, the material required – is always tremendous – this is why carbon fiber, titanium, and other exotic materials are not used in “city building” – neither floating nor land based.

    Keep in mind that his “anchor line” can at least be handled “weightless in water” – and its cost would be maybe 3% of the structure cost of the city it is anchoring to the seafloor … still the most economic station keeping that is available for deepwater.

    Oil industry uses plastic anchor lines increasingly for the same reason…see report below.

    http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/23873/articles/offshore/volume-57/issue-5/departments/drilling-production/wave-of-concrete-platforms-headed-for-deepwater-west-africa.html

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #12382
    Profile photo of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    shredder7753 wrote:

    4 km of tree trunk thick plastic. OMG. so let me pull out my geometry notes here… we’ll say a tree trunk is .75m thick. V=pi*r^2*h. V= 1766.25 cubic meters of special plastic. dude man im broke. thats just one of how many lines?

    Yes that is a fine observation – if you do ANYTHING in city size, the material required – is always tremendous – this is why carbon fiber, titanium, and other exotic materials are not used in “city building” – neither floating nor land based.

    Keep in mind that his “anchor line” can at least be handled “weightless in water” – and its cost would be maybe 3% of the structure cost of the city it is anchoring to the seafloor … still the most economic station keeping that is available for deepwater.

    Oil industry uses plastic anchor lines increasingly for the same reason…see report below.

    http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/23873/articles/offshore/volume-57/issue-5/departments/drilling-production/wave-of-concrete-platforms-headed-for-deepwater-west-africa.html

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    [/quote]

    gr8 research bro, from 14 years ago.

    #12394
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    shredder7753 wrote:

    shredder7753 wrote:

    4 km of tree trunk thick plastic. OMG. so let me pull out my geometry notes here… we’ll say a tree trunk is .75m thick. V=pi*r^2*h. V= 1766.25 cubic meters of special plastic. dude man im broke. thats just one of how many lines?

    Yes that is a fine observation – if you do ANYTHING in city size, the material required – is always tremendous – this is why carbon fiber, titanium, and other exotic materials are not used in “city building” – neither floating nor land based.

    Keep in mind that his “anchor line” can at least be handled “weightless in water” – and its cost would be maybe 3% of the structure cost of the city it is anchoring to the seafloor … still the most economic station keeping that is available for deepwater.

    Oil industry uses plastic anchor lines increasingly for the same reason…see report below.

    http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/23873/articles/offshore/volume-57/issue-5/departments/drilling-production/wave-of-concrete-platforms-headed-for-deepwater-west-africa.html

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    [/quote]

    gr8 research bro, from 14 years ago.

    [/quote]

    Unless you’re suggesting there’s some new technology I don’t see how 14 years would have changed anything.

    Relevant technologies developed in the past 14 years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith_Schneider_Propeller years old*)(80

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube

    Neither of which are competitive with synthetic rope mooring on a cost basis.

    *http://www.voithturbo.com/vt_en_pua_marine_vspropeller.htm

    #12404
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    shredder7753 wrote:

    gr8 research bro, from 14 years ago.

    which means that these platforms have been in use for over 10 years on the open sea, and at much less expense then traditional rigs.

    #12409
    Profile photo of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    im not saying old ideas are bad. i mean look at the wheel?

    what i am saying is – for all of our sake, try to use the most recent sources possible. if anything is really that good, there should be some mention of it somewhere within a closer time frame. keep in mind that this website helps determine how much money TSI can get from sponsors. that determines how quickly we make progress and improve life on earth. thx a bunch.

    #12411

    The reason why i mention the “how to do” of deep sea anchors sometimes on the threads is because i feel that the discussion is drifting off from reality and venturing into phantastic terrain based on wrong presumptions. The dogma that anchoring in deep water is not possible or asociated to excessive cost is not true.

    The need for “anchoring on a seamount” – “dynamic positioning”, “gyre seasteads” – is not really there. Oil Gas industry is anchoring 50.000 ton structures with chain solutions at 2000m depth as we speak on a dayly base, and also looking into “neutral buoyant lines” for the reasons mentioned earlier.

    Anchors are 15% of the total project budget if you have extreme stringent position keeping needs like the oil/gas industry has. For a seastead with easy going positioning needs anchor cost may be kept at 3% of the total project budget if you include buoyant anchor lines into the concept.

    So in general i am not a fan to blow up a seasteads economy and feasibility by putting it out on a lonley seamount or a gyre just to avoid 3% of the project cost for a neutral buoyant anchor line.

    The forums are full of discussion where to place a seastead to avoid “problematic ancoring” – the discussion should run the other way round – place the seastead where it is convenient for economic reasons and get a anchor suitable for that spot.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #12413
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Of course, I have IDed a location outside of EEZs that a seamount that is very close to both inexpensive labor and markets (Europe in this case). It is shallow enough to do a Condeep that well under Troll A size (but the design in that case would use the legs for living space)

    However if your looking at something larger then a single family sea-stead, The costs of sea anchors would be a small cost in the overall budget.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 163 total)

The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate