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




open ocean capeable living space bubble

Home Forums Archive TSI Engineering open ocean capeable living space bubble

This topic contains 85 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of shredder7753 shredder7753 2 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 86 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11819
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    On another thread there is reference to a US Navy test of ferrocement spheres that were designed for various depths. IIRC, the deepest was 3500′. That one was destruction tested and managed to go to something like 4500′ One of the design parameters was 1 Atmosphere internal pressure. Designing for depth is more a matter of engineering…

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

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

    #11820

    J.L Frusha, you refer to this study?

    —————————–

    Title : Long-Term, Deep Ocean Test of Concrete Spherical Structures – Results after 13 Years.

    Descriptive Note : Technical rept. Mar 78-Nov 84,

    Corporate Author : NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LAB PORT HUENEME CA

    Personal Author(s) : Rail,R. D. ; Wendt,R. L.

    Report Date : JUL 1985

    Pagination or Media Count : 70

    Abstract : In 1971, a long-term, deep-ocean test was started on 18 pressure-resistant, hollow concrete spheres, 66 inches in outside diameter by 4.12 inches in wall thickness. The spheres were placed in the ocean near the seafloor at depths from 1,840 to 5,075 feet. Over a 13 year period, annual inspections of the spheres using submersibles have provided data on time-dependent failure and permeability. After 5.3 years of exposure, three spheres were retrieved from the ocean for laboratory testing, and after 10.5 years two more spheres were retrieved and tested. This report is the third report in a series describing and summarizing the findings from the ocean and laboratory tests. Data on concrete compressive strength gain, short-term implosion strength of the retrieved spheres, and permeability and durability of the concrete were obtained. The data have shown that concrete exhibits good behavior for ocean applications. High quality, well-cured concrete can be expected to gain and maintain strength when submerged in seawater under high pressure. Concrete is a durable material in the deep ocean; neither deterioration of the concrete matrix nor corrosion of reinforcing steel are problems, even though the concrete becomes saturated with seawater. Uncoated concrete has a very low rate of premeation of seawater through the concrete and even this small flow can be prevented by a waterproofing coating. (Author)

    Descriptors : *CONCRETE, *STRENGTH(MECHANICS), *UNDERWATER STRUCTURES, *DEEP OCEANS, THICKNESS, PERMEABILITY, LABORATORY TESTS, CORROSION, TIME DEPENDENCE, FAILURE, HIGH PRESSURE, SPHERES, DEPTH, STEEL, SHORT RANGE(TIME), COATINGS, STRENGTH(GENERAL), GAIN, INSPECTION, WALLS, FLOW, OCEANS, DETERIORATION, SEA WATER, LOW RATE, OCEAN BOTTOM, REINFORCING MATERIALS, COMPRESSIVE PROPERTIES, WATERPROOFING, SUBMERSIBLES, IMPLOSIONS.

    Subject Categories : PHYSICAL AND DYNAMIC OCEANOGRAPHY CERAMICS, REFRACTORIES AND GLASS

    Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

    source: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA160232

    ————————————–

    admirlal doty, i am not sure if “waiven” is a correct english term for the phenomena that a diver experiences when submerged below big waves. I checked and found the term “surge” describing the back and forth movement of water between waves.

    English is my third language after german and spanish so i apologize if there is sometimes a wrong word choice in my comments… “hackzone” may definitly be my own word creation for the zone where ships get “hacked to pieces” when having a close encounter with rocks in heavy sea.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11822
    Avatar of admiral-doty
    admiral-doty
    Participant

    Your English looks very good, better than a lot of what I read and hear from native speakers and writers. I assumed it was your native language. I thought maybe waiven was a typo, then saw it twice, thought maybe it was a foreign word. Surge is probably the correct term, though it can also mean an extra, longer term increase in sea level due to wind pushing water up against land, as in storm surge during a hurricane. There is also tidal surge.

    We are very much on the same page regarding concrete as a preferred material for seasteading, though I’ve seen too much spalling from rebar rusting out of concrete here along the coast to feel comfortable with it, so I prefer glass fiber to steel reinforcement. Fiber is also much less labor intensive to cast into shapes.

    admirlal doty, i am not sure if “waiven” is a correct english term for the phenomena that a diver experiences when submerged below big waves. I checked and found the term “surge” describing the back and forth movement of water between waves.

    English is my third language after german and spanish so i apologize if there is sometimes a wrong word choice in my comments… “hackzone” may definitly be my own word creation for the zone where ships get “hacked to pieces” when having a close encounter with rocks in heavy sea.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11823

    admiral wrote:
    …I’ve seen too much spalling from rebar rusting out of concrete here along the coast to feel comfortable with it, so I prefer glass fiber to steel reinforcement. Fiber is also much less labor intensive to cast into shapes.

    Yes, i have seen that a lot too. What happens is that this concrete was poorly executed in first place – you can not see it at the moment of pour – but you see it a few months after. The rebar rusts and increases its volume 4 times in the process, this rips the piece apart. The good thing is there is no “hidden failure mode” the failure is clearly visibe at plain sight.

    So when your “concrete” looks good after a few months it IS good and will stay good for 200 years. If it looks bad and spalling after a few months it was no “concrete” in the sense of civil engineering in first place you probably produced something like wet sand with insufficient cement/water ratios crowned by a insufficient curing process.

    The worst attack happens not where the piece is in the saltwater it happens where the material gets wet and dry out frequently they call it “splash zone”. So when you look at concrete in costal zones you are probably looking pertty much at the worst case that can happen (amateurs mixing low quality coastal defenses for the spash zone).

    You should have a look at barges built in WW1 and 2 – which are harder and stronger today than they where when built (concrete increases strength over time) and where the steel is so perfectly conserved after 70 years of uninterupted saltwater contact that you can still read the original mill stamp.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11824
    Avatar of Alan
    Alan
    Participant

    ellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
    no existing structure gives you a real chance of escape in case of failure – how fast can you run when the bridge you are crossing is falling down? – what stairway do you take when the columns of a building fail? – the idea of escaping from a failing structure is pure illusion. If a submarine hull fails you will not even drown miserably – you get instantly killed by the implosion.

    If, as you suggested earlier, that submarine is only a few meters beneath the surface the failure will probably not be by implosion. Rather, it will be some malfunction of an ordinary piece of equipment – a fitting that isn’t quite watertight or a pump and alarm that both happen to malfunction at the same time – and the sub begins to slowly sink until a large wave pours water through a hatch that didn’t quite close and the sub begins to flood rapidly as the residents are woken by the incoming water…

    People escape structural failure every day – most notably when fire destroys a building, but in many other cases too. I don’t know if they still do this, but years ago I toured a nickel mine and the guide noted that although metal supports are stronger they still used wooden supports, because wood makes audible noises before it fails and allows the miners to escape.

    I agree that submarine habitats may well be safer than those built on the surface, but attention must still be paid to the very real dangers attendant. Multi-compartment habitats that will not sink even when many of the compartments are flooded is one way to accomplish this, as are habitats large enough that there are always likely to be people awake and aware to sound an alarm and take action in an emergency. Even a watertight sleeping area and available SCUBA gear may be enough. Most people will want to know that they have a way out in an emergency, however, before they agree to live in such a habitat.

    As it happens, I have long been interested in subterranean structures, and many of the issues are the same. Underground buildings are actually safer in an earthquake than those on the surface, but psychological fears remain – and the danger of fire, where residents would have to climb UP stairs to escape, is greater than in surface dwellings. These issues can be addressed, just as they can be addressed for submarine habitats, but few people are going to build these structures and move in until these issues are addressed – with more than a wave of dismissal.

    #11825
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Alan wrote:

    no existing structure gives you a real chance of escape in case of failure – how fast can you run when the bridge you are crossing is falling down? – what stairway do you take when the columns of a building fail? – the idea of escaping from a failing structure is pure illusion. If a submarine hull fails you will not even drown miserably – you get instantly killed by the implosion.

    If, as you suggested earlier, that submarine is only a few meters beneath the surface the failure will probably not be by implosion. Rather, it will be some malfunction of an ordinary piece of equipment – a fitting that isn’t quite watertight or a pump and alarm that both happen to malfunction at the same time – and the sub begins to slowly sink until a large wave pours water through a hatch that didn’t quite close and the sub begins to flood rapidly as the residents are woken by the incoming water…

    People escape structural failure every day – most notably when fire destroys a building, but in many other cases too. I don’t know if they still do this, but years ago I toured a nickel mine and the guide noted that although metal supports are stronger they still used wooden supports, because wood makes audible noises before it fails and allows the miners to escape.

    I agree that submarine habitats may well be safer than those built on the surface, but attention must still be paid to the very real dangers attendant. Multi-compartment habitats that will not sink even when many of the compartments are flooded is one way to accomplish this, as are habitats large enough that there are always likely to be people awake and aware to sound an alarm and take action in an emergency. Even a watertight sleeping area and available SCUBA gear may be enough. Most people will want to know that they have a way out in an emergency, however, before they agree to live in such a habitat.

    As it happens, I have long been interested in subterranean structures, and many of the issues are the same. Underground buildings are actually safer in an earthquake than those on the surface, but psychological fears remain – and the danger of fire, where residents would have to climb UP stairs to escape, is greater than in surface dwellings. These issues can be addressed, just as they can be addressed for submarine habitats, but few people are going to build these structures and move in until these issues are addressed – with more than a wave of dismissal.

    [/quote]

    Airlines demonstrate how cost can be one of the single largest deciding considerations in human decision making. While it’s easy for sensationalist yellow journalism to demonize a lifestyle out of fashion, I do subscribe to “if you build it they will come” on low prices.

    #11826

    Alan, good point you bring up here – people will not do it until somebody else does it, so they can see how it works. We can not expect the average guy to have a “realistic perception” of a lifestyle while the only “role model” that exists are u-boat movies where always somebody gets drowned under dramatic claustrophobic circumstances.

    This is how society works – only a few are comfortable with “pioneering” the mainstream is always waiting how it goes before following.

    When Hans Hass dived with sharks in the late fifties it was seen as a suicidal sport of a individual driven by a deathwish. Today scuba diving with the occacional reef shark is relaxed mainstreem tourism – it is not the real dangers that changed – what changed is public perception about it driven by the numbers of people who do it.

    We can not expect anything else than “almost paranoid danger perception from the average guy” until we make it mainstream.

    “Adressing the emotional danger perception issues” can lead to solutions like the one in England when “horseless explosion driven cars” was invented – for security reasons a man with a red flag had to run in front of the car to warn the public of the aproaching danger… we do not say that cars are without danger today but we try to adress things a bit different and see the “danger perception” with a smile.

    The idea of a unsinkable chambered structure is feasible when you can include more than 20 chambers so that limits the concept somewhat.

    The parallel to subterranean structures is a good one. Practice shows that emergencies like fire must be handled different in subterranean structures than in surface buildings. I think the latest trend is not “a always open escape route that can be taken obstacle free by a mass in panic” but a vent sistem that can handle the toxic gases and safe rooms for the people.

    For a submarine seastead closed 1atm escape pods would be great – but they might turn out “not feasible” just like ejection seats (usual safety feature in military jets) could not be realized in passenger airliners.

    So in general beware to posulate safety features from one solution to another – what is possible for a yacht – might be impossible for a cruiseship – what is possible for a cruiseship might be impossible for a seastead – what is possible on surface might be impossible subterranean or submerged, in any case any solution can be safe in its own special way – without reproducing safety features that are usual somewhere else.

    We are probably going a wrong track when orienting things on the “wanted safety features of the borderline phobic” – we would end with a ejection seat for every passenger in a boeing 474 and this solution would be a safety hazard in itself.

    What is needed is the correct balance of possible engineering and a realistic perception of dangers, and this will only come with implementation.

    So best we can do is get a pioneer and implement to pave the road that safety oriented minds will follow when it can be percieved as mainstream safe and widley tested .. .

    PS.

    Insurance statistics says that the most dangerous item on board resposible for most yacht sinkins is the toilet valve…not sharks reefs and hurricanes – what a difference in perception and reality.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11902

    Sorry for my overreaction of dismissal when the submerged/deeploaded/floating living space bubble discussion entered into a “claustrophobic scenario discussion” – what i really have in mind are concrete shell living space ambients in bubble look with the feel of the living space shown in those fotos…

    I agree that the scycologic factor is the most important argument against submerged structures.

    A plate shape stadion seastead with the feel of being on surface and the sky all over you althoug you live technically below the waterline (like in netherlands) migh be a starting point for people that do not like the idea of being submerged.

    Those who have absolute no problem with submerged might go for radical new ambients like the submerged restaurant below or the architecture of modern aquariums with their acrylic tunnels.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11909
    Avatar of Farmer
    Farmer
    Participant

    An open, “roomy” living space is necessary; we, like all other animals are bound by our nature. We can bend our basic needs but we cannot break them.

    This synthisis of the most logical answer and the most “human” answer is wise indeed.

    #11913

    Nasa did a couple of confinement experiments to test out if people can scycologicly stand the idea of living in space in a small living space bubble – one of those was performed in a similar ambient on earth (the ocean) it was the BEN FRANKLIN drift dive experiment in cooperation with Piccard and Grumman.

    During this experiment a crew of 4 was confined during a month in submarine living space of only 130 cubic meter drifting 2000 miles from florida to mid atlantic submerged at 200m waterdepth with no surface connection at all.

    We can consider this the submerged seastead “worst case szenario” – according to the crew all went well no big collision with “human nature” – very doable at the end. So the engineering and human base for fully submerged cities is layed since the early sixties.

    On the other hand the plate seastead would allow to live below the waterline without even noticing it – just like all dutch people are already living “below the waterline” in their country without the cities being any different from cities living above waterline – except the fact that they need to keep the sea out with a “dike” that goes around the country which has 50% of its living space several meters below the north sea waterline.

    We already know form a wide range of engineering applications how high the “dike” around a “plate seastead” must be to keep the sea safely out of the plate depression (around 16m high) which is very doable.

    So the concept of a submerged living space does not necessarily need a change in lifestyle or a adaption in human nature. We can embrace the submerged status (like Ben Franklin) or make it completly unperceptible (like the dutch ) – and we can do anything between.

    What if we start with a plate (stadion) seastead and load it deeper by building it higher up over time (like the rion-antirion bridge pylon) – so people can get used to it.

    We may end up with a semisubmerged skyscrapper or a sea orbiter where people can live below or above the sea level depending on their preference. Such structures already do exist as underwater observatory in the red sea. And the rion-antirion bridge pylon solved the engineering.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11924
    Avatar of ssteve
    ssteve
    Participant

    I would say there is a big difference between someone who can live in a confined space for a month knowing that they will be released after that and someone who knows they must spend most of the rest of their life in a concrete coffin.

    #11925

    ssteve, give you that.Those confinement experiments in submarine living space bubbles where designed to test out the absolute extremes of the case.

    I doubth like you, that there will be a lot of people that voluntaryly adopt submarine confinement as a desireable syle of living.

    It may be one out of hundred who really would like to live disconnected from the surface, producing oxigen from the seawater wandering submerged and seperated from mankind trough the worlds oceans captain nemo style.

    The typical owner would handle a submersible living space bubble habitat (i avoid the word submarine due to the misleading coffin perception) as a simple yacht that is in almost all of its aspects a yacht, just absolute storm safe, seasickness free, burglar safe, and maintenance cost free.

    Like other yachties you would not be the whole day enclosed inside your boat. You would form part of a yachtie community anchored in the bay of a caribbean island.

    In the morning you would row over to the beach meet with people from the other boats, have a beach grill, a coconut, a island adventure – you would only return to your boat to have a pleaseant night sleep in a king size bed and a freshwater shower.

    There are differences in lifestyle to other yachties. For example when you leave your boat in the morning (all of your family – nobody wants to stay and watch the family home) you just close the hatch – so your living space becomes absolute burglar safe.

    The other yachties always live a bit preocupied about their boat, is somebody breaking in to steal your nav equipment?, is the weather on the anchorplace changing smashing the boat against the reef?, – so they tend to live “in sight” of the boat.

    You on the other hand, when get an offer for this dream on week trip – take it – when you return you will find your stuff well protected inside your living space bubble – just exactly as you left it there – breaking in trough a hatch is like breaking into a banksafe – nobody can deploy the necessary (heavy industrial) tools on a anchorplace.

    Another situation where your life is really different to a yachtie is when you are together with several sailing and motor yachts anchored in front of this pristine beach of a unhabitated island. Somebody has a radio and spreads the news that tropical cyclon Bertha category 4 is closing in. Now it becomes clear why this beautiful island was uninhabitated in first place – no save harbor miles around.

    Some yachts rush out into the dark of the night to make it by the speed of their expensive engines to the next safe spot – just to find that it is cramped with poorly anchored industrial barges that tend to come loose in a storm and grind everything in their way to pieces.

    Smaller yachts send the kids for the nearest hotel to be safe and go for the mangroves to bring out several lines to the trunks and fight it out. They can make it as long as the storm surge is moderate.

    You on the other hand just close your hatch drink a coffee watch TV – no need to leave the anchor place. If things become bumpy flood your ballast tanks and lay your bubble some 5m down on the sandy lagoon bottom until the storm has passed over you. You and your family are safe as in a underground bunker.

    You could take advantage of the shit weather and the sudden absence of all your yachtie friends and make a few miles to visit the next spot. You sail out directly into the storm – trim your living space bubble at snorkel depth – you leave the coffee cup on the table, you watch the weather the sea and ship traffic with your snorkel top camara – but your comfort is not affected by the storm.

    Your live will also be a bit different when aproaching a cramped marina with no space for “another boat” – you will always be the “most exotic boat” that draws the attention and marina owners will love to asign you a nice place to stay – maybe for free. While it may be difficult to have privacy in a cramped marina on a surface boat – you close your hatch and you have it.

    Your living space bubble will also be different in terms of aircon, comfort electrics, and loading capacity.

    For example a yacht in the caribbean can spend dozends of dollars a day in aircon to make the climate below a sun heated deck just bearable. The seawater around your hull maintains the inside at 22 degee with no aircon need.

    Yacht owners sometimes go crazy with the vibrations and noise of the small generator that keeps the battery and freezer alive. Noise dampening and vibration is most of all a function of bulkhead weight – bad news for “leight weight yacht outfitting” – you have your generator behind 20cm concrete – complete silence guaranteed.

    Yachties are always short of loading capacity for freshwater food, tools, equipment.

    You on the other hand have dozends of tons loading capacity this gives you not only the freedom of a much longer range compared with similar sized surface yachts – it also allows you to make a living as a trader – moving cold beer in hotel quantity to remote locations.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11926
    Avatar of caveden
    caveden
    Participant

    Hello Will,

    Your posts are really interesting. Nice pictures too!

    But I have to ask: if subs have so many advantages over boats, why people seem to still prefer boats? Current ports are not deep enough for subs? Peolple just like the wind on their faces while moving around? Prices are too high for subs? What do you think is the reason?

    Do you think that house-subs with more windows (more sunlight) than the one you present in the pictures above could be built without making it much more expensive? How do subs compare to yatchs in term of prices, including maintainance and travel costs?

    Sorry if I’m asking questions that have already been answered somewhere.

    #11931

    The only commercial yacht sub offer is from US submarines with 78 Million USD for a 1500 ton boat (means 52.000 USD per cubic meter living space) so the price is part of the reason.

    The other part is boaters are conservative – if you have followed the decade long discussion of monohull versus catamaran you see that it took the yacht market about 3 decades to accept catamaran hulls.

    So i expect if we bring out the first sub-yachts now it will take some 3 decades at least to make them a ” widley accepted popular choice” – despite of their obvious advantages.

    Ports that are made for sailing yachts and their deep ballast keels will also be deep enough for yacht subs.

    People who like wind and weather in the face exist, but are not mainstream in the yachtie szene. Most people want to use a yacht as a comfortable houseboat.

    The amount of windows can be whatever the owner wants. Thick cast acrylics is expensive when designed for great dive depths.

    In general a sub hull of 18m with 8 windows gets more light inside than a standard yacht.

    Our hulls have a general cost frame of 331 Euro/cubic meter – so this is much more economic than most yacht hulls. They are designed to stay in the water for 200 years without maintenance.

    Travel costs are driven by the fuel costs i estimate fuel and propulsion cost 5 times lower than a comparable yacht. Due to the benefits of absence of wave resistance and a generally by far smaller engine necessary.

    The whale model suggest that a 50 horsepower engine is sufficient for a 20m sub yacht.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11932
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    To begin with, I’m already a huge fan of Wil’s subs… most of you have picked up on that.

    Wil, I see a lot of the same pictures from you. I’ve also checked your Youtube channel. Any chance you can give us a tour of your 100 ton sub?

    Where speed is concerned, I understand the benefit of submerged propulsion. Is there a sweet spot for sub speeds? The place where, due to water resistance, the sub reaches a ‘optimal speed’ before the law of diminishing returns takes over? How fast do you cruise around when in your sub?

    Thanks!

    -Jason

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 86 total)

The forum ‘TSI Engineering’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate