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




mass production of floating family units – concrete shell seasteading

Home Forums Archive Structure Designs mass production of floating family units – concrete shell seasteading

This topic contains 25 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 2 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1119

    A floating family housing unit – massproduction of concrete shells as a way to make “open sea housing” available for family budgets. – enjoy the artists vision…

    We can build it at average housing prices, and we already have built floating concrete shell structures at building costs of 331 Euro / ton.

    The full vision in a youtube video…

    Link to video presentation: Floating family unit

    We can start building them for protected bays – take the revenue and build floating breakwaters on the open sea – it would be like a marina – just the “boats” would be “floating housing units”. – houseboats on open sea.

    Shell building in concrete has been discussed before at the following areas:

    http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Vincecate/BallHouse

    http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Vincecate/GeodesicVessel

    http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Vincecate/WaterWalker

    http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Jesrad/BunkerStead

    My impression is that living in a “shell structure” floating, semisubmerged, or submerged, was percieved as a “claustrophobic thing” to ride out the hurricane. As somebody who has actually built and lived in such shell structures i can assure you it is not.

    To check on the living experience of a submerged shell structure check:

    imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/ak

    Let me hear your thoughts…

    Cheers,

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    #8738
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    This is currently my favorite option for “low road” seasteads. It would probably provide greater safety than even large boats and could be built in the $10,000 – $1,000,000 range, depending on how big the structure was to be. I’d done some rough estimates that pointed to the concrete for a small, single family sized prototype to cost around several tens of thousands, not including labor. Here’s a link to my user page with some more dinky images: bunkers.

    I’m not sure what’s holding this up, exactly. For me, its 1) lack of knowledge of reinforced concrete construction 2) money 3) lack of proximity to big waves, in that order. It may also be that most don’t want to have a small bunker as their permanent living quarters (I’m ok with it). Thus far it seems like the best option for single family seasteads (or small-number-of-family seasteads). It also has the advantages that concrete shells aren’t particularly expensive, and can be built in a continuous range of sizes, so we could start by dumping a few $100 dollar concrete seasteads in the ocean, then when they don’t collapse gradually make bigger ones as the smaller ones are proven seaworthy and the market for them increases. Planning to start doing this myself, but I obviously can’t stop my entire life to start pouring concrete in the backyard just so I can run out of money in a few months. Fortunately I can teach myself how to work with concrete and rebar while saving up money for a decent sized prototype, and hoping a better seasteading idea comes along in the meantime.

    PS. This may also work well with Eelco’s ideas for connecting seasteads for greater stability, and if enough of them were present they could eventually form a breakwater. Picture (sort of):
    O O
    O O O
    O O O O
    O O X O O
    O O O O
    O O O
    O O

    #8741
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    These are my thoughts about it.

    1. A modular property would be desirable for the hull design, so these structures can be connected and “locked up” toghether to form a bigger floating seastead.
    2. The freeboard seems to be too low for open ocean. I would increase the freeboard on the bow, coaming down toward mid-ship. Thus, the aft deck will be dry and protected from the elements.
    3. I am not a fan of teak decks:-(. They cost a fortune, are slippery when wet and are high maintenance. But that’s just me,….
    4. I like the elongated keel and the underwater glass bottom. But the cylinder shape will create drag. My suggestion would be to flare it from the keel bottom towards the water line, while keeping the glass bottom concept on. Thus, you will have a planing hull which will give you lower fuel consumption @ high speed.
    5. If 4. is the option than the engines shud be lowered to the level of you keel bottom, on a hydrofoil type skeg. (that will bump your lift time while putting on a plane). Otherwise they will cavitate.
    6. What would be a ballpark estimate to build a 100′ LOA bare hull?
    #8750

    Melllvar wrote:

    …small bunker as their permanent living quarters ….

    …. concrete shells aren’t particularly expensive, ….

    …. and can be built in a continuous range of sizes ….

    …. Planning to start doing this myself, but I obviously can’t stop my entire life to start pouring concrete in the backyard

    …..connecting seasteads …

    Hello Mellvar, your concept about concrete shell structures looks very promising, i just would not talk about “bunkers as living quarters” the ambient of a shell structure can be lightfuler and better distributed than any luxury yacht . Similar as a yacht you would use certain deck areas only in good weather but this is certainly not “living in a bunker”.

    I would say that most people would like to live on a yacht if they only could afford it. So the point is how do we get the cost for living on a yacht to a normal family house budget. First strip or limit the function of a boat (not needed) like houseboats do. Second go away from costly yacht building materials.

    I agree that building a floating concrete shell is not particularly expensive – in my experience space purchase cost in the housing market is already higher than creating the same space as floating shell structure – so floating housing is overdue. The land houses built on concrete rafts that we all have seen are quite bouring solutions – why not building elegant shell structures for open sea housing – concrete shells in marine environment have a 200 year maintenance free service life. If you want to live at cape hoorn build it like a bunker – for the caribbean build it much more open and light.

    You can use the proven techniques of cast joints and structural post stressing to achive a rigid structure that can grow for ever by adding new shell elements to the existing structure, hosting a growing community.

    If the community in Belize takes off one of the economic activities could be building cup shaped shell structures and float them out into the caribbean – seasteaders would buy such a prefab floating island of maybe 20m diameter at the the cost of a family house basement – put their camping gear on it and start to create their own floating paradise – similar to the mexican bottle island – but with a much more stable and open water capeable foundation. It would be something between the

    individualistic cheap approach like this – stavos.homeip.net/condemned/bottleIsland.htm

    and the “almost luxury yacht” approach like this – imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/marine/image/lens.htm

    Cheers,

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    #8778

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    These are my thoughts about it.

    1. Amodular property would be desirable for the hull design, so these structures can be connected and “locked up” toghether to form a bigger floating seastead.
    2. …freeboard….
    3. I am not a fan of teak decks:-(. They cost a fortune, are slippery when wet and are high maintenance. But that’s just me,….
    4. I like the elongated keel and the underwater glass bottom. But the cylinder shape will create drag. My suggestion would be to flare it from the keel bottom towards the water line, while keeping the glass bottom concept on. Thus, you will have a planing hull which will give you lower fuel consumption @ high speed.
    5. If 4. is the option than the engines shud be lowered to the level of you keel bottom, on a hydrofoil type skeg. (that will bump your lift time while putting on a plane). Otherwise they will cavitate.
    6. What would be a ballpark estimate to build a 100′ LOA bare hull?

    1) concrete shell structures can be connected by cast joints – it would look like an egg carton -

    2) in concrete shells you can leave the freeboard an “empiric thing” if you get too much water on deck (at your specific location) build it up a bit.

    3) teak – some like it some hate it – my mass production site will only do raw shells – ready to live aboard with your camping gear – the rest is according to the owners taste.

    4) the glass bottom is optional

    5) i would prefer a clean hull with options for outboard or electric trolly tipe engines – to keep the building easy and economic it must be shell building only for workflow reasons.

    6) The building cost for shell structures as we handle them at concretesubmarine.com is 331 Euro per ton of displacement. This is driven by the workforce cost in south-america the local material costs, cement, rebar, aggregates – for a 100′ m (30 meter diameter lens cost depends on the shellthickness you would like to have.

    In a nutshell – for a flat cup structure with 10cm shell thickness, with a chamber structure to assure insinkability and a flat deck on top to build your dream house on it :

    10m diameter = 78m2 deck area – 38 tons displacement – 12.578 euro – 839.square foot
    20m diameter = 314m2 deck area – 148 tons displacement – 48.988 euro – 3379.square foot
    30m diameter = 707m2 deck area – 336 tons displacement – 111.216 euro – 7610.square foot

    The 10cm shell thickness would guarantee about 200 years maintenance and docking free service life.

    If you would only order the cup shape with no chamber structure and build the deck yourself the price would be about half.

    If you would only go for very thin shells (minimum 5 cm) you could possibly cut prices in half.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    #8780
    Avatar of Joep
    Joep
    Participant

    Cool!

    One question, why is the submerged part so small? I’d like more living space there. A bar perhaps :)

    -Joep

    #8781
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Ty for responding. Can you build rebar reeinforced structures other than the “flat cup”, @ customer specifications? 5cm hull thickness would be ok since they would be floating, not submerged.

    Octavian

    #8783
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    ellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
    In a nutshell – for a flat cup structure with 10cm shell thickness, with a chamber structure to assure insinkability and a flat deck on top to build your dream house on it :

    Can you give some more specific information on the structure? How many internal chambers? Wall thickness of the internal chambers? Deck thickness and material? Freeboard for this type of structure? Is the flat-cup structure tapered, like a drinking glass, or more like a cylinder?

    #8789
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    I agree that something of this nature would work great in calmer waters; building a floating house on a concrete shell isnt any more expensive than building a house on land; potentially cheaper since you get more freedom of choice in where to buy from.

    However, a small structure , having linear dimensions of only 30m or so, will not be very comfortable in anything but very calm waters.

    The only way for a displacement hull to gain appreciably in comfort is by gaining in size. For good stability under all circumstances, you need something with a length of hundereds of meters, so that it is big even compared to the longest type of wave of appreciable amplitude.

    I dont much like the idea of building 400m structures as a starting point, but having a smaller module that would work in protected waters, and could be tensioned into a larger structure capable of operating in the open ocean certainly does make sense.

    However, if such a long structure is to survive worst case head seas, you very much need to design it with surviving those kind of conditions in mind from the very start. Youll need more than 10cm of concrete, for sure. From studying concrete offshore LNG platforms, you are looking at very thick concrete, and probably about 2000$ per square meter of deck area. (which then could support many floors, so the cost per unit floor area would be very managable; by far the best among the options I have considered).

    #8790
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    is a very relative term while @ sea, Elco. 30m (90′) aint that bad for a yacht (power or sail) or a seastead, in terms of comfort. Most of them (the yachts) @ that length are luxurious,…in terms of accomodations. Will they still be all over the place in 30′ seas?…hell yeah. But that is just a “minor incovenience”, and not neccesarely discomfort. :-). The best way to survive huge storms is to avoid them, a salty sailor told me once, and I took that for granted. I would never consider a seastead without a good degree of mobility, ever.

    Octavian

    #8791
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Tastes differ, certainly. From what I understand, you are a seasoned sailor. Most people are not; and some will never be, no matter how badly they want to.

    Resistance to motion sickness varies greatly between individuals. A small percentage of people can handle hardly anything at all, and will never adapt too. Asking sailors about motion sickness is not necessarily representative, because they are self-selected for natural resistance.

    Even on a large semi-sub like clubstead, the average person without prior exposure will experience a percent of two of ‘downtime’. A seastead where people are puking their guts out 10% of the time or more, is not an acceptable solution to us.

    That said, we might be able to eat our cake and have it to a significant degree. A concrete pontoon structure of elongated shape would be fairly mobile. It would essentially be a ship with a really high block coefficient, as far as the physics of its mobility are concerned.

    #8792
    Avatar of livefreeortry
    livefreeortry
    Participant

    Hey Ellmer, I have visited your website and found the concept of concrete submarines very intriguing. However recently I have visited some floating fish farms noticed very severe corrosion of the bolts used to hold the wooden platforms together. As far as I know, these are galvanized steel bolts.

    Won’t the same problem arise in concrete submarines as well as floating concrete shells? Are there any simple solutions?

    #8793
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    unfortunately there are two types of people:those who get seasick and those who dont. Dramamine helps for those who do, but then we might end up with a “nation” of sedated people onboard,…(not neccesarely a bad idea :-)

    Back to the subject, I agree: extend length,beam and displacement as much as possible for a concrete structure, to the point that it still retains a decent degree of mobility and good stability. But, talking about stability,…I ran into this video few weeks ago http://www.yachtsilvercloud.com/SSC/movies.htm. and I am now seriously contemplating a swath for a seastead design. What’s amazing about the video is the fact that the pilot swath boat in the background is running maybe twice as fast as the conventional monohull, but “flat” in 15′ waves,…while the big one is dipping her nose big time. Not only that, but the pilot swath is half the size of the monohull! Therfore, stability is achived thru hull design rather than increasing the displacement. In my view this is very important when talking dollars and seasteading since less displacement would translate in lower construction costs. Whats your take from the engineering angle on this one? Maybe we can exchange some notes.

    Octavian

    #8794
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
    Therfore, stability is achived thru hull design rather than increasing the displacement.

    Well there still is plenty of displacement, they just put the displacement under the water and only have a small interface with the surface. It also has a very wide beam which helps tremendously I’m sure. And it also mentions four large computer-controlled stabilizers. So there are several things happening to give this baby it’s stability.

    That being said, after looking at the specs of the Silver Cloud I know what to put on my christmas list to Santa.

    #8796
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    LOL, thats a big bag for Santa to carry,…

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)

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



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate