Building materials for seasteads

The high seas are (theoretically) open and free, but come with many construction challenges. Waves and winds should be familiar to all of us. I'm going to talk about construction materials options in the presence of the unholy trinity of biofouling, chloride corrosion, and UV.

Aluminium. Lightweight, inexpensive, easily recycled, handles UV well. Moderate difficulty to work and to repair. No particular resistance to biofouling if left in contact with water, but is not vulnerable to burrowing. Is destroyed very quickly by chloride corrosion. Not a practical option unless you are in a low-chloride environment like the Great Lakes of North America.

Cupronickel (including gunmetal, admiralty brass and similar). Moderately easily worked and recycled. Heavy. Invulnerable to UV. Extreme resistance to biofouling (toxic to invertebrates but not mammals or plants). Decent strength in tension compression and shear. Decent creep resistance. Horribly expensive. Resistant but not immune to chloride attack - no crevice corrosion or pitting, but sheds material very slowly across its entire surface. Combined with its cost this is like watching banknotes blow over the side. Can be practical for piping and similar when too small or inaccessible for inspection and maintainence.

Polymers (plastics). Lightweight, inexpensive. Uniquely vulnerable to UV, this can be managed with coatings, free-radical stabilisers and UV-absorbent fillers such as titanium dioxide. Mostly low strength, lower stiffness and no creep resistance unless reinforced with glass fibre, carbon fibre, or metal fibre. Easily recycled... unless you add fillers or reinforcement: you need both. Good resistance to biofouling. Essentially immune to chloride attack (though metal fittings and reinforcement might be vulnerable). Cheap and practical to build, moderately easy to repair, impossible to recycle.

Steel, coated. Very easily worked and repaired, moderately easily recycled. Cheap. Moderately heavy. Immune to UV. Coating can provide good resistance to biofouling. Excellent strength in tension, compression and shear. Excellent creep resistance. Quite vulnerable to chloride corrosion and related sulphate corrosion, can be managed with constant inspection and maintainance. Best option for working boats / infrastructure that expect to be damaged and repaired almost constantly.

Steel, stainless 316. Easily worked and repaired, moderately easily recycled. Expensive. Moderately heavy. Immune to UV, highly resistant to biofouling, more so if coated. Excellent strength in tension, compression and shear. Excellent creep resistance. Resistant to chloride and sulphate corrosion, doubly so if coated. This is not true of the cheaper 304 stainless and similar. Best all-rounder if you can afford it.

Your thoughts? Other options I may have overlooked?

316 is not great for structural stuff. Skinning? Sure. I would not rant to try to design a while ocean going vessel relying on 316 to withstand the rigors of years of being pounded on. IIRC, it's also going to work harden. If I'm correct about that, you will be chasing cracks that will continually propogate and there's nothing you can do about it except possibly heat treat the entire structure, and that is not practical.

More (exponentially more) expensive but the "best" metal would probably be Ti. But, this would be lighter than steels, more corrosion resistant than most stainless, might be prone to work hardening, but alloying and proper design can mitigate most of that concern.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

316 is used commercially for tanks in ocean-going product tankers, its not THAT bad! But sure, maybe restrict it to skinning.

My other concern with 316 in a seastead is hydrogen embrittlement when around batteries with aqueous electrolytes.

Probably shouldn't have said "best all-rounder" :-p that was asking for trouble.

(But it is! :-p Just not best at everything).

Tanks inside aren't subject to as much stress as the hull of a ship, since they are usually made to be pressurized or work in tension. With stainless you have to be a lot more careful of temperature gradients placing stress on joints/fastening.

I'm just not a fan of stainless as structural parts. I weld enough stainless used in various safety related systems to just hate it. Customers wonder why the parts come out so funky, when they are requiring at least 5x too much weld on pieces and don't understand that stainless warps way more than carbon steels. I think you could make it work, though, but it would require better engineers than I'm used to working with to pull it off.

Proper venting would reduce/eliminate any hydrogen concerns, especially if you double or triple seal the batteries, or use sealed batteries for a majority of your power storage.

LOL true, re stainless.

Re batteries, you are correct, but sadly a seastead isn't subject to military or even commercial discipline. Some bored teenager or suburban dad is going to remove / disable the fan or barrier features, and embrittlement is nontrivial to pick up. We need not just idiot proof but owner-proof

Oh. You're talking about building stuff for other people. Eff that. I'm a pretty seriously competent idiot, but I know they make industrisl trade idiots that put me to shame. I would not want to try to design and build something so complicated as a seastead and then let other people try to not break it.

If they sign a contract and end up with a cracked hull because they didn't do the thing they were supposed to do, that is not your fault.

ROFL

In a seastead, they're probably moored to my vessel and several more. And while I'd like to cut them loose and let them sink, Murphy's Law says the guy who does this will be the nephew of the Secretary of the Navy and the only reason we've not been blown up yet as a "hazard to navigation" :-D

Meeeeh. Fine.

Use as many passively redundant systems as possible, coupled with stupidly redundant fail over monitoring. My brain hurts thinking about the wiring system just for that alone. I'd rather build a car from scratch... LOL

Ti would be best, even if scary-expensive, but AFAIK its nontrivial to work with. My old boss once dated a Russian academic who had worked on processing Ti for their submarines. I never learned any of the secrets, but apparently the forces involved in pressing it were very hard to reproduce without billions in budget

Eh, yes, but, no?

The Ti forgings for the SR-71 required building the world's most powerful presses. Two were made. Only one still kind of exists, IIRC.

If you're trying to do that kind of thing, yes, you need boatloads (literally) of Fiat. However, you're not building a pressure vessel. You are building a floating structure. You can do most of the work with formed sheet metal. Welding Ti is totally achievable with fairly standard practices, just with more shielding with either trailing cups and backing or various other methods used in aerospace. It's hard, but 100% doable, if you can get the material. China is pumping out millions of cheap Ti goods formed to a very precise degree. (I have a Ti flask that is comically light.) The tech is there, and achievable.

I'm sold

We're going to need more Zaps :-p

And yet, you don't have a wallet set up... WTF?!

I'm a monster... I was going to setup my own LN node, but got called away and haven't gone back to it.

Okay, where would you recommend for hosted wallets?

Pfft. I'm a newb. WoS works, and I'm not planning to use the sats I'm zapped for anything but zapping, so I don't care about phone nodes or others.

I just use an Alby wallet here on my desktop. Works great.