Slashdot Mirror


Instant Buildings - Just Add Water

lawrencekhoo writes "Wired has an article about the newly invented Building in a Bag. The structure is made from cement impregnated fabic, that is sealed in an easily transportable plastic bag. You literally just add water, and then inflate. Twelve hours later, you have a ready to use building. Possible uses include shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals."

43 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Time to advance. by dauthur · · Score: 4, Funny

    This sounds like the building process from the Jetsons. Maybe now we can move on from the trailer homes, manufactured homes and traditional building and move onto "Ziplock Construction Co."

    1. Re:Time to advance. by idlake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that much of the US still builds by nailing drywall and siding to a bunch of wooden beams is not for a lack of new building techniques--it's simply still cheaper and easier, mostly simply because it's what everybody else does (=economies of scale).

    2. Re:Time to advance. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be 2k$ impromptu shelters, either. There are factory-development methods out there for building custom homes. You can have machines cut and assemble almost arbitrary floor plans, and ship out prebuilt sections of the house to assemble on spot.

      Unfortunately, there's this stigma of "prefab housing" being small, low-quality, one-design "housing for the poor". It's kind of annoying seing such stereotypes standing in the way of progress to cheaper, higher quality housing. I mean, large buildings have been shifting a lot more to automated construction, and houses lend themselves even more readily to it because the sections are smaller and easier to transport.

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    3. Re:Time to advance. by idlake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I agree, technically, it doesn't have to be. But if you try to buy or build a new home, you will find that, in reality, in the US, most of your choices for something average-to-nice come down to traditional construction. Furthermore, you'll have problems with resale value if you buy prefab.

    4. Re:Time to advance. by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problems with prefab housing are twofold, first and most importantly is that anything which is light enough to allow for economical transport of economically buildable subsections is going to be chinsy compared to a real timber and 3/4" plywood plus 3/4" hardwood floors. The second problem is that preparing the site and combining the pieces takes almost as much labor as rough framing an equivilant structure, and all of the labor besides the site prep and rough framing is done by skilled laborers that will charge about the same for their work whether it is done onsite or as part of assembling prefab blocks.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  2. but how..... by EmptyBuffalo · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, once I get my mother-in-law to go into the building, how do I get the whole thing back into the bag?

    --
    cat life | grep joy >> memory
    1. Re:but how..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're funny, but you're raising a valid point. They're thinking of using this for shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals... Personally I think tents are better for these purposes, since you can actually dismantle them and reuse them in the future. Why would you for instance want to smack up 10,000 of these in a disaster area, just to have to tear them down a couple of months down the road?

    2. Re:but how..... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People will use them after the aid agencies leave. Probably not for themselves, mind you, but they'll find *some* use.

      I've seen several pictures of those mass-built concrete houses that various aid agencies have built in earthquake-hit parts of Iran to provide shelter and make it so that the locals won't get killed in the next quake. Nobody was living in any of them - instead, they used them to hold their livestock. Apparently they were a lot more uncomfortable to live in than traditional housing in the climate (in addition to being an eyesore).

      --
      "Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  3. I can see it all now... by telstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thousands of refugees adding water and ingesting their "building in a bags" thinking they were MRE's.

    1. Re:I can see it all now... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thousands of refugees adding water and ingesting their "building in a bags" thinking they were MRE's.

      That's an easy fix - put the buildings in round packages and the MREs in square ones. What could possibly go wrong.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:I can see it all now... by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd wager that the inflatable houses taste better while the MRE's can be used to make sturdier shelter.

  4. A housing solution for slashdotters by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, I can move out of my parents' basement!

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:A housing solution for slashdotters by DustMagnet · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yea, but it might block wifi?!?!

      I'm sad to say my first reaction to reading this, "No, it won't. Didn't you read the article." This stuff is very thin and once dry it wouldn't absorb much RF. It only took another second for me to realize it was a joke. Anyway, don't most Slashdotters want to block all RF from leaving their domicile? If I want to receive RF, I'll put up a Pringles can.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  5. reminds me of a t-shirt I once had.... by wileycoyoteacme · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instant asshole, just add alcohol

    --
    Insert witty comment here
  6. Great! by biggerboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    An inflatable building to house my inflatable...er...friend.

  7. Somewhere... by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny


    ..Dr. Schlock just got a hard-on...

  8. Transportable? by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, ok, cool for emergencies. But I won't be carrying one on my back anytime soon, cause I'm sure it weight a ton, literally :)

    Do they come in multiple flavors, too?

    1. Re:Transportable? by EmptyBuffalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article somewhere around 500 lbs actually. Not bad at all!

      --
      cat life | grep joy >> memory
  9. What do you add... by EmptyBuffalo · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to get your cement building to grow a door?

    --
    cat life | grep joy >> memory
  10. One drawback... by bpuli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While the product is innovative and interesting, the comparison (cost-wise) with other "portable" structures is not correct. This looks to be (from the article) a non-portable semi-permanent structure.

    --
    BP http://www.card-central.com
  11. why the concrete? by qwasty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not dispense with the concrete and just make it inflatable? I doubt the concrete will make it all that much more permanent of a shelter than it would otherwise be. Besides, if it's good enough for space, it's good enough as a temporary shelter. Check out the inflatable space habitats

    1. Re:why the concrete? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever pop a hole in a ballon?
      Ever pop a hole in a sidewalk?

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
  12. Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
    why not fiberglass?
    Fire? Last I looked, fibreglass burns. Nastily.

    Would make a good mother-in-law house, though - what better way to "cement" a relationship than with a load of flammable epoxy ...

  13. How much if manufactured in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much do you reckon the instant building would cost if it was manufactured in China?

    I am thinking it would be a great way to help poor people in Third World countries have a cheap roof over their heads that is actually high quality. I can imagine a slum in Mumbai filled with thousands of these instant buildings. What are the economics and advantages of an instant building as replacement for flimsy shelters in slums across the world?

  14. I don't think the military needs this by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In a world with millions of refugees, numerous war zones and huge areas devastated by natural disaster, aid agencies and militaries have long needed a way to quickly erect shelters on demand.

    "agencies" maybe, but the military already has a way to erect shelters quickly: lots and lots of man power. Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  15. Spelling and grammar troll by WillerZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry, but I can't help myself...

    The English language has some rules about the correct placement of commas in a sentence. It's not a case of "Instant grammar just, add commas!!!1"

    May I take this opportunity to recommend Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" to the author of the above summary?

    Oh, and the word you were looking for was F-A-B-R-I-C, fabric; not fabic. Fabic sounds like an eastern-european football player.

    </rant>

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
  16. This product will soon be acquired by Acme Co. by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of their first customers will be Wile E Coyote.

    Mark my words! :)

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  17. Re:Military applications by EvilIdler · · Score: 4, Funny

    This also means we're one step closer to the fast building of today's
    real-time strategy games :)

  18. technique used for several decades now by idlake · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hard-shelled structures created from inflatable templates are actually quite common. Usually, they are made by spraying concrete or polymer onto the inflatable shell. Alternatively, you first pour on the concrete, then inflate (it takes fairly little pressure to do so). The lining is some combination of fabric and water/air-proof plastic. Some of the templates are reusable, others become part of the structure.

    Have a look at Domtec and Binishells.

  19. What's not to like? (The cost?) by Tau+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a shell that's strong in compression. Pile earth on it, and you've got your sound and thermal insulation. The one issue I can see is the small size; 172 square feet isn't much. You'd need a lot of them for any kind of refugee situation, and at $2100 each (about $12/square foot) it's probably as expensive as local housing in most of the world if not more so.

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
    1. Re:What's not to like? (The cost?) by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The army will eat this up. They don't care about the costs, and it's perfect for them. This could be a sturdy (relative to a tent) frontline building; a small mess hall, infirmary, officer's quarters, hummer garage... the list goes on.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:What's not to like? (The cost?) by salec · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is just a proof of principle. Later on, HMV garage probably will be designed.

      Building sterility shouldn't be a problem. If you deliver it with precompressed gas in a bottle, no need to start a compressor either. Once again, armies will love that - silent construction.

      I wonder if it could be placed directly underground thru narrow shaft (or, underwater, if attached to heavy anchoring weight?) and expand by supplying enaugh pressure from the surface? You get instant underground/underwater bases (i.e. on other planets as well)

      Other modified uses for this technology I can think of:
      • Military (these applications may pose certain preferences in choosing the right fabric - say, kevlar(R)?):
        • fast hard-hull boat manufacturing as needed (army forced river crossing)
        • light armour for trucks, for armored personel carrier improvisation.
        • additional, expendable, "skirt" light armour (well, deflector for cumulative shells) for tanks
      • Civil (disaster relief):
        • fast manufacturing of wide crossection, low pressure pipeline (i.e. sewer system)
        • fast floodwalls manufacturing
    3. Re:What's not to like? (The cost?) by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dunno Capt'n. I mean, would the army really like blowing up buildings?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  20. Re:Issues with Disposal by MickLinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, the basic form of disposal is probably close to what we do with waste concrete pilings, at the prestressed concrete company where I work. We pile them on the ground near the water, and let them act as landfill that extends our land. No joke. It's not too bad -- as the concrete very slowly decays due to the freeze-thaw cycle, it pretty much doesn't pollute anything. Everything there is also found in natural rock that comes into the ocean with rivers.

    However, if that's not good enough for you, you can do as we do with our waste wet concrete. Expose it to acid (muratic acid, for example), and it will break down faster.

    But for me?

    I rather suspect that this stuff would be good for burying in the ground, covering with dirt, and planting grapevines over it.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  21. Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, speaking as an engineering student, the main problem I can see with making a structure where all load-bearing components are strictly made out of fiberglass is that fiber-reinforced plastics (the catagory into which fiberglass and carbon fiber composites, among others, fall) are only really strong in tension, and even then, only along the axes parallel or close to parallel to the fiber orientations. If you add in compressive loads to the structure (as is sure to happen in any structure I can think of), the material's strength is dramatically reduced, meaning you either have to use a whole lot more material (and thus add more weight that the structure has to support) or switch materials.

    Concrete just happens to be very effective at handling compressive loads, and when reinforced with steel rebar or the like, can handle tensile loads in a reasonable manner as well. This is probably the reason that cement is used in lieu of epoxies and other plastics - it has better load-bearing characteristics under compression.

    --

    Software piracy is victimless theft.

  22. Re:Minor details... by back_pages · · Score: 4, Informative
    I think they need a reality check.

    Uh yeah, or maybe some random guy on the internet who has never actually laid eyes on the thing isn't the leading expert in how it works. I'm just, you know, tossing that out there. No offense, I'm just saying..

    It's fabric drenched in cement. I don't know how much cement you've laid, but I've laid quite a lot. Reinforced concrete is a modern marvel - literally. I believe The Discovery Channel has an episode of Modern Marvels specifically about concrete.

    By the way, which weighs more, 500 lbs. of feathers or 500 lbs. of lead? Guess how much a 98 lb. bag of concrete weighs. Guess how much that 98 lbs. of concrete weighs after you use it to impregnate a piece of fabric? I'll answer the next one myself: What do you call a piece of fabric impregnated with 98 lbs. of concrete? Reinforced concrete.

    So my take on this is that they're making a very thin shell of concrete, much like you're traditional paper mache, except far more durable. It probably wouldn't survive the erosion of a few heavy rains, but if you crashed a car into it, it would crumple but not be demolished.

    I KNOW that somewhere I've seen someone else constructing buildings with this inflation method but I can't recall where. Maybe it was grain storage sheds or something. Anyway, reinforced concrete is truly remarkable - if this stuff made a shell 1/4" thick, you could bust it up with a hammer or a baseball bat but it would take you all day to actually tear the thing down. The cool thing about reinforced concrete is that it doesn't really matter if you crack it. You end up with two pieces of concrete that are bonded by the reinforcement so tightly that the crack is inconsequential. Adjust that concept for 1000 cracks or thin sheets of concrete, but the principle still holds.

  23. Where do you get the water? by madshot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't people usually have problems with water during disasters? If you place contaminated water into the structure are you going to have problems?

    What about areas where the problem is they have no water? Just some thoughts..

    --
    Obama = Socialism.
    1. Re:Where do you get the water? by dubiousmike · · Score: 4, Funny

      just make use of the included powdered water...

  24. but then they couldn't win the prize by bodrell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Seeing as they came up with the idea as an entry in a "innovative concrete uses" contest, they probably didn't want to use fiberglass.

    There is also the issue of wind. I'm sure concrete structures don't blow away as easily, and many disaster areas are going to have lots of wind and water. Plus, concrete doesn't need to dry to set. Apparently it sets up quite nicely underwater.

    My father has been building unique houses for about thirty years. One was an earth-covered house ("underground" is a bit misleading, but that's what I would normally call it) and he's been looking into a very modular building material called 3-D Panel which is basically styrofoam between wire meshes. After you assemble the building, using rebar or something to connect wire meshes together, you spray it with shotcrete, and you're done. I mean, if we're allowed to have a spraying apparatus, why not? The specs for this panel system are impressive. They say the insulating value is R-18 to R-33--better than the new homes they throw up these days in my neighborhood.

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
  25. Re:what about tents? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > what's wrong with a good old tent?? I can put one
    > up in just a few minutes!

    Never actually lived in a tent, have you? Do you like dry feet? Not having your home blow away?

    > Are these thing sturdier?

    Much, much sturdier.

    > Lighter?

    Much heavier. That's a _plus_.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  26. Re:*Second* prize? by finnhart · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know parent is modded funny, but I wondered the same thing. From the British Cement Association site:

    First prize of £3,000 went to Il Hoon Roh for his reinforced concrete organic modular system that impressed the judges for its visually exciting construction potential. The second prize of £2,000 was awarded to Peter Brewin and Will Crawford for their joint entry of portable emergency concrete tents. The humanitarian potential of this entry was very evident. Phoebe Cummings and Stine Vesperson were awarded the third prize of £1,000 for their delicate pieces that combined lace with concrete. The effect gave concrete, usually seen to be a robust material, a more soft and fragile character.

  27. Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different by wwwillem · · Score: 4, Informative
    Also, when wood is under compression, it's a LOT harder to ignite. Take a look at any older (+75 years) building after a fire - the wood main beams will be charred

    Your observation is right, but the reason is different. When a thick beam starts to burn, the charcoal that forms itself on the outside will start to protect the inner wood from burning, as soon as it is more then 5 cm / 2 inches thich. Charcoal is funny enough a fire retardent.

    As an example, in most (probably all) countries, steel structures must be protected against fire, which is normally done with plaster, concrete, etc. However, at least in Holland, the building code allows you to wrap the steel in 5 or more cm of wood instead.

    So back to your 75+ year old house. What protects those beams against the fire is the fact that the pieces of wood used are much thicker than the current 2x6 studs. Or the current "construction beams" that are just strips of plywood with some wood laminated at the ends.

    --
    Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...