Concrete submarine

Yes, safety is most important otherwise it is one way trip down.
Lets see a concrete submarine from Colombia to California, assume that you will have 100% chance of being very throughly searched by Coast Guard. They might like they did to me bring a big drill and just start opening holes. I hope I don't hear about it in the news.

 

A strobe and radar reflector on a stick (snorkle) is a lot better than a conning tower! Radar on a stick lets you see them. Transponder on a stick lets you and them share course and location 20 miles away. Pupet on a stick will scare them away! Unless your in somalia LOL

A 60' break away snorkel won't hurt much when it breaks off. Thats what the triple redundant self sealing valves are for. Thats' good for all but the largets military and super tankers and they do watch their radar! At 12kts you have Plenty of time for a slow dive. They are only aproching at 1200' per min so a 10 min dive only uses up 2 miles. Thats a very casual dive to 100', even including the time to fold the snorkle while under way.

Any one with a sub should plan on taking advantage of the snorkle 90% of the time they are under way. It is many times safer than a surface boat.

Remember even those super agile cruise boats need a mile to miss you. So like any small yacht you need to plan on missing them! As for impact safety, small surface boats do very poorly. People die every year! they do not have the option of a fast dive from 40' to 100' in under a min!

Remmeber, safety at sea is all about diligence! that is not a feature included in any surface or sub I know of. I am totaly against a floating concrete house. No ability to ACT on your own diligence!

If you want a nice quiet night watch,
dive to 150' for 6 hours and put your ears on!

Wake the next guy, surface, run on snorkle for an hour and hand over the helm after he has breakfast. A 200 ton sub should be able to do that all day long.

 

No there arent - there are pictures of some early prototypes, and one very unfinished production job.

Keep up the news - I am particularly interested in the 'paperwork' and approvals you need - as would any prospective purchaser, I am sure.

 

The University of Alabama Huntsville has a concrete canoe team. This stuff they make is as light as styrophome. I don't know about submersion though. Concrete tends to "sweat" when exposed to constant submersion. Maybe they coated it?

 

concrete sub status

Hi, My name is Steve Vallance, and I am authorized to speak for Wil, who is finishing the 200 ton sub. There are a lot of factors in preparing a sub like this and bringing it to the States.
There are minor delays, but it is near completion and getting ready for the trip North.
I am putting my name on the Concrete Sub design. I am not an Engineer, but I can read what is being done and make and form an educated opinion as to it's seaworthiness. I like it and I want to see the company succeed.
All I can say is that it is on it's way, safety being the foremost concern, and testing must be done.
Myself, I want to be involved and own a sub of my own as well. I am not planning any deep dives, and I will make sure that I can resurface after going to small depths beneath the waves.
Any questions anyone may have, I can do my best to answer them.
Steve

 

To rwatson

I understand your concerns, and yes, ferrocement has the implication you described. However, I have spoken to ferrocement designers, and the design is specific to a tequnique used in making a concrete ferrocement hull for a surface boat.
Although technically, you are right. Ferrocement is the method, but the concept is different. A completely different method is used. This is a Ferrocement IE. concrete and iron, pressure hull, as opposed to the method of laying-up cement over wire. So we can refer to Wils concept as a different method of pouring cement as opposed to the other method.
Your concerns are well founded. But I can read studies, and concrete is used in a multitude of construction. I have mention before, I do not want to set ant deep dive records. I just want to be able to submerge to a safe level and be assured that I can return to the surface. In a pressure hull, a secured hatch, neutral boyancy and the ability to jettison large ballast in case of an emergency are my thoughts as to being safe, along with other previously mentioned measures.
Sorry for the duplicate introduction, it was delayed in posting and I simply reposted.

 

I am a Marine Contractor. I build seawalls of iron and concrete all day long for many years. I know a little on building concrete structures that are exposed to seawater all the time. Here is my advice.
1. Build it from highest psi concrete you can 5000 psi and higher
2. Add fibers to mix
3. Add DCI to mix which corrosion controller
4. Used galvanize rebars or at least epoxy coated rebars
5. The whole thing needs rebars everywhere in a cage.
6. Paint it
7. Allow for stress cracks, I don't know how in submarine
8. Pour all at one time for maximum strength
9. Keep it wet during curing
10. Allow over 30 days to cure
11. Don't stand under it...

 

What are dimensions of 200ton sub. at 3500lbs a yd, thats 114yd
About 11 trucks. That is a hard pour unless it is done in sections. The forms can't hold that kind of weight.

 

everything possible

I take you advice seriously. That is a factor in moving the sub. Forms can be done all day and the approval is what is necessary. A movement of this size must be planned, approved through every Country's entry and export laws.
I have come, on a sailboat to the port of entry in San Diego, and the process there, coming from Mexico was very thorough. This was on a surface vessel. We want to be as transparent as possible and leave no questions as to our intentions.
From the paperwork aspect, I will try to compile everything i can and post it. This of interest to me, but our plans include an entry into the US with every aspect available to every agency interested.
I will also try and get updated photos as to the completed hull.
Thanks for the comments,
Steve

 

the 200 ton sub

As everything was done in the metric system, I had to convert and here is what I got as a result.
18 meter in length turned out to be 59.06 feet. The width at the largest spot was 15.09 feet. Wil, who is monitoring can correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I got from our website.
The mold used for the 200 ton sub did support the weight, and this is a major undertaking. Obviously, it was done, and you can get a rough idea as to it's methods. This is for all to see, and we can attest that the mold is a major aspect. You are right, cement must be done in one shot to keep it all one piece. Again, difficult but not impossible. After many discussions with Wil, I can appreciate the work he did in the time between the prototype and the 200 ton sub. Hundreds of models to perfect the method consumed many years and to duplicate it from scratch would consume a lot of time.
Obviously, we would like feed back as the the specifics and the challenges associated to a 200 ton sub. The benefits to a sub of this size afford it the possibility of being free from a slip and a mooring of it's own. This does present unique challenges as to fitting out the interior to your sub, but this can be done with a floating dock. I would like to hear other opinions as to a sub this size, skipping the payerwork associated, and focusing on the infrastructure.
Steve
In contrast, the prototype, the 20 ton boat in Europe was 9 meters in length, which is 29.53 feet. The width was 2.5 meters, which was 8.20 feet.
Thanks, Steve

 

new entries

As I am new to the idea somewhat in the world of concrete submarines and the prospect of bringing the boat to the US, has many new challenges to overcome. For me, being the first in the US to make this a reality, I would like to hear specific ideas from those of you that are truely interested in the transition from a surface boat to a sub.
I like sales, but bringing concrete pressure hulls, as opposed to typical ferrocement, to anyone who wants to be involved is a major goal of mine, and the company's. My dream is to live aboard and to be able to see what I have been missing below the waves.
As open as we are, new ideas can only help us achieve or goals. As you all know, people want to see it perform as promised. To accomplish these goals, additional ideas and people ready to invest in the idea are crucial.
I am particularly interested in a self contained sub, with no reliance on a slip or any kind, or petrolium product to keep it moving. This may be of particular interest to the EV movement for instance.
I want to get anyone interested involved with making this possible. That means fund-raising individuals co-ops, and corporations that would see the benefit, as far reaching as a floating apartment for some.
I woke up inspired this morning and I hope my inspiration has rubbed off to some of you.

 

Good to get some intelligible feedback at last.

Specific questions I am curious about

1) Insurance Arrangements

2) How DEEP is "Submerge to a Safe level", "not planning any deep dives, and I will make sure that I can resurface after going to small depths " ?

Given that Will was expounding the virtues of being able to build very thick shells with less difficulty than steelwork, I cannot figure out why you are going to all the trouble of building in concrete instead of steel.

Assuming you dont want to go down very deep (as you say), you dont need a very thick hull, and you dont need to build it in such a problematic material as concrete.

What is the advantage of building in concrete instead of steel ?

 

Just curious RW.
Have you ever prices a 50'x16' steel preasure hull?

I have all the same safety and cost questions for you.

For example the xray bill for a steel preasure hull and specifically the welds is close to the cost of the steel itself! I just wonder given those irefutable facts why you have such a problem with a 200' rated concreet hull?

Are you worried you won't be able to see it on sonar? LOL

Your questions are great! But one sided is being polite. You have not offerd half as much information as Will has and he has arguably provided little.

My mentor once told me that you do not change the world with questions, you change it with solutions!

For example you seem to have a great deal of insight into the problems of getting that sub in the water but i have not seen a single suggestion except stop while you are ahead. I doubt Will and his gang see that as contributing a solution.

I respect your possition, agree with it in many ways, but i would respect it more if I saw contribution of solutions backed by the same detail as the problems.

For example it may be that the solutions raise the price beyond practicality. But that is for those who take the risks to decide. We are here to ask the favor of those who take those risks to share their experiance with those of us who do not.

Don't get me Wrong. I think your trying to help in your own way but ask yourself how best you could help Will and his team? If that is your goal?

Here is to hoping that we can all give will and his team constructive questions and solutions on our way to our own enlightenment.

 

Concrete Sub Quality Control

Will,

As others have mentioned micro void detection in a concrete presure structure, is as vital to quality control as weld xray of steel preasure hulls.

Luckly, there are several low cost acoustic and radio wave based devices that can provide the same level of Quality assurance for concrete structures at a fraction of the price of steel xray.

There are several GPR and acoustic concrete slab evaluation systems that can be rented for just such a purpose. A survey of a relativly small structure like your sub should only take a day or two.

The good news is that continious pour of high quality concrete seldom create voids of a size that impact safety. Especially if you add random fiber.

Good luck.

 

Well if we all did the math it is pretty easy to see that a sub with that much internal vollume needs some serious ballast. Thats why military subs have minimal internal air volume. Their full of heavy steel pipes, bulkheads and equipment to balance their internal air volume. Their problem is compounded by the fact that their hulls are compressable so the deeper they go the less boyancy they have. Ouch! that's inherantly dangerious!

Concrete structures maintain their volume to failure so sophisticated balast control like those found in large "steel" subs are unnecissary. All you have to do is move a little water forward and back to adjust for people walking fore and aft. A simple accelerometer at the front, connected to a reversable pump, will eliminate any perceptible changes in pitch. Apply a manual down bias to that servo and then drive the sub down.

Good roll stability comes from all that sand at the bottom just like a surface vessel. Add a roll gyro, the 500lb kind, and you have a very comfortable yacht in motion or at rest.

Thick, dense walls and 1/8 full of sand at the bottom for stability provides safety and stability at the same time. Add some simple droppable external ballast and you have a low cost simple civilian configuration.

Nothing that would ever stand up to military standards but then if you look at a millitary ship it is built quit differently from a civilian yacht.

Perhaps a shallow (<200') civilian sub can be a lot simpler and less expensive than a > 5000' research or military sub? Especially if you use "thick" distributed ballast like Will has done.