855KG sand = 1m square ?

Discussion in 'UK DIY' started by Andrew Welham, Oct 29, 2006.

  1. when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of sand
    in square meters ?

    Thanks

    --
    To reply via email, first reverse the address below then replace the
    (at) with @ and the (dot) with .
    ku(tod)em(tod)mahlew(ta)spuorgswen
     
    Andrew Welham, Oct 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Welham

    Andy Wade Guest

    Andrew Welham wrote:

    > when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of sand
    > in square meters ?


    That depends how thinly you spread it. If you meant cubic metres, then
    I'd suggest about a half.

    --
    Andy
     
    Andy Wade, Oct 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andy Wade wrote:
    > Andrew Welham wrote:
    >
    >> when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of
    >> sand in square meters ?

    >
    > That depends how thinly you spread it. If you meant cubic metres, then
    > I'd suggest about a half.
    >

    sorry i meant cubed, was just about to make the correction

    --
    To reply via email, first reverse the address below then replace the
    (at) with @ and the (dot) with .
    ku(tod)em(tod)mahlew(ta)spuorgswen
     
    Andrew Welham, Oct 29, 2006
    #3
  4. Andrew Welham

    jim Guest

    Andrew Welham wrote:
    > Andy Wade wrote:
    > > Andrew Welham wrote:
    > >
    > >> when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of
    > >> sand in square meters ?

    >/snip/


    > sorry i meant cubed, was just about to make the correction


    Suggest you visit the supplier & ask to see a full bag ("to see what
    you are going to get") and apply a tape measure but also check how full
    it is. Also the supplier should know what the nominal capacity of
    their bags is.

    IIRC delivery bags used by some suppliers around here are 0.6 cubic m
    but YMMV.

    HTH
     
    jim, Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. Andrew Welham wrote:
    > when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of sand
    > in square meters ?
    >
    > Thanks
    >

    IIRC aggregate and sand is about 2.3 tons per cu m.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    Andrew Welham wrote:
    > when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of
    > sand in square meters ?
    >
    > Thanks


    I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes in
    builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as 'bulk
    bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of around 850kg
    is a cubic metre, that is to say, I lay it at exactly 50mm deep and it
    covers 20 square metres, or ten if I put it 100mm deep.
     
    Phil L, Oct 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Phil L wrote:
    > Andrew Welham wrote:
    >> when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of
    >> sand in square meters ?
    >>
    >> Thanks

    >
    > I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes
    > in builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as
    > 'bulk bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of
    > around 850kg is a cubic metre, that is to say, I lay it at exactly
    > 50mm deep and it covers 20 square metres, or ten if I put it 100mm
    > deep.


    Google reckons sand weighs approximately 2 tonnes per cubic metre.

    Si
     
    Mungo \Two Sheds\ Toadfoot, Oct 29, 2006
    #7
  8. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot wrote:
    > Phil L wrote:
    >> Andrew Welham wrote:
    >>> when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of
    >>> sand in square meters ?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >>
    >> I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes
    >> in builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as
    >> 'bulk bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of
    >> around 850kg is a cubic metre, that is to say, I lay it at exactly
    >> 50mm deep and it covers 20 square metres, or ten if I put it 100mm
    >> deep.

    >
    > Google reckons sand weighs approximately 2 tonnes per cubic metre.
    >
    > Si


    I know! - and yet in all the bags I use each month, it (almost) always works
    out at 20m2 @ 50mm thick...between 18 and 22 depending on the
    ground....moreover, if I order loose tonnes rather than bulk bags, I'm left
    with surplus
     
    Phil L, Oct 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Phil L wrote:
    > Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot wrote:
    >> Phil L wrote:
    >>> Andrew Welham wrote:
    >>>> when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount of
    >>>> sand in square meters ?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks
    >>> I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes
    >>> in builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as
    >>> 'bulk bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of
    >>> around 850kg is a cubic metre, that is to say, I lay it at exactly
    >>> 50mm deep and it covers 20 square metres, or ten if I put it 100mm
    >>> deep.

    >> Google reckons sand weighs approximately 2 tonnes per cubic metre.
    >>
    >> Si

    >
    > I know! - and yet in all the bags I use each month, it (almost) always works
    > out at 20m2 @ 50mm thick...between 18 and 22 depending on the
    > ground....moreover, if I order loose tonnes rather than bulk bags, I'm left
    > with surplus
    >
    >
    >

    Probably very dry sand then..
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Oct 30, 2006
    #9
  10. Andrew Welham

    Grunff Guest

    Phil L wrote:

    > I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes in
    > builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as 'bulk
    > bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of around 850kg
    > is a cubic metre



    This is of course impossible, since it would mean that your
    sand/aggregate is less dense than water, and would float in water.


    --
    Grunff
     
    Grunff, Oct 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Andrew Welham

    Guy King Guest

    The message <4545f757$0$633$>
    from Grunff <> contains these words:

    > > I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes in
    > > builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as 'bulk
    > > bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of
    > > around 850kg
    > > is a cubic metre


    > This is of course impossible, since it would mean that your
    > sand/aggregate is less dense than water, and would float in water.


    Yes - and then again no. In reality you're quite right, but if the
    grains were /really/ odd shapes that didn't pack at all well, each
    individual grain might be more dense than water, but the volume filled
    by them when (very badly) packed could conceivably be less than that of
    water.

    Imagine a load of steel barrels with no tops or bottoms - each one would
    sink on its own, but wrap 'em in a bag and they'd float.

    In fact, such things exist. You can get glass rings, like beads or
    napkin rings which are used to reduce the effective concentration of
    radioactive liquids so they can't possibly reach criticality no matter
    how concentrated they get.

    --
    Skipweasel
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
     
    Guy King, Oct 30, 2006
    #11
  12. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    Grunff wrote:
    > Phil L wrote:
    >
    >> I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as tonnes
    >> in builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe, sell them as
    >> 'bulk bags' given that they are short of a tonne) anyhoo, one bag of
    >> around 850kg is a cubic metre

    >
    >
    > This is of course impossible, since it would mean that your
    > sand/aggregate is less dense than water, and would float in water.


    Sand is less dense than water, given that it's surrounded with gaps, if
    there were no gaps it would be stone.
    :p
    The bags are 1200 wide and filled about 750 deep, or to be finicky, 120cm by
    75 cm...this of course means that you will get fifteen squares that are 50mm
    deep and 1200 by 1200, each of these fifteen squares covers approx 1.44m2,
    and there's fifteen of them, this makes 21.6m2, at least it does around
    here, your sand might be different where you are.
     
    Phil L, Oct 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > Phil L wrote:
    >> Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot wrote:
    >>> Phil L wrote:
    >>>> Andrew Welham wrote:
    >>>>> when sand is delivered in 855Kg sacks, what is the approx amount
    >>>>> of sand in square meters ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks
    >>>> I use about fifty tonnes of this every month (they sell it as
    >>>> tonnes in builders merchants, but B&Q wanting to play it safe,
    >>>> sell them as 'bulk bags' given that they are short of a tonne)
    >>>> anyhoo, one bag of around 850kg is a cubic metre, that is to say,
    >>>> I lay it at exactly 50mm deep and it covers 20 square metres, or
    >>>> ten if I put it 100mm deep.
    >>> Google reckons sand weighs approximately 2 tonnes per cubic metre.
    >>>
    >>> Si

    >>
    >> I know! - and yet in all the bags I use each month, it (almost)
    >> always works out at 20m2 @ 50mm thick...between 18 and 22 depending
    >> on the ground....moreover, if I order loose tonnes rather than bulk
    >> bags, I'm left with surplus
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Probably very dry sand then..


    Not really no, the sand isn't sold by weight, it's sold by volume...if it's
    lashing it down when they are filling the bags, you get the same amount as
    during a drought, although the weight will vary considerably.
     
    Phil L, Oct 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Andrew Welham

    Grunff Guest

    Phil L wrote:

    > Sand is less dense than water, given that it's surrounded with gaps, if
    > there were no gaps it would be stone.


    Seriously, it isn't - put some in a bag, tie it up, see if it floats.
    Unless you leave loads of air in the bag, it won't float.


    --
    Grunff
     
    Grunff, Oct 30, 2006
    #14
  15. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    Grunff wrote:
    > Phil L wrote:
    >
    >> Sand is less dense than water, given that it's surrounded with gaps,
    >> if there were no gaps it would be stone.

    >
    > Seriously, it isn't - put some in a bag, tie it up, see if it floats.
    > Unless you leave loads of air in the bag, it won't float.


    I know sand doesn't float, that is why the seabed is covered in it....Im not
    getting into one of those ridiculous pedantry competitions neither, the OP
    wanted to know how many m2 he'll get from a bulk bag and now he knows.
     
    Phil L, Oct 30, 2006
    #15
  16. Andrew Welham

    Grunff Guest

    Phil L wrote:

    > I know sand doesn't float, that is why the seabed is covered in it....Im not
    > getting into one of those ridiculous pedantry competitions neither, the OP
    > wanted to know how many m2 he'll get from a bulk bag and now he knows.



    Well, no, he doesn't, because an 850kg bag isn't a cubic metre, it's
    around 0.6 cubic metres. This isn't a pedantic argument, this is simply
    an argument where you are making incorrect assertions.


    --
    Grunff
     
    Grunff, Oct 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    Grunff wrote:
    > Phil L wrote:
    >
    >> I know sand doesn't float, that is why the seabed is covered in
    >> it....Im not getting into one of those ridiculous pedantry
    >> competitions neither, the OP wanted to know how many m2 he'll get
    >> from a bulk bag and now he knows.

    >
    >
    > Well, no, he doesn't, because an 850kg bag isn't a cubic metre, it's
    > around 0.6 cubic metres. This isn't a pedantic argument, this is
    > simply an argument where you are making incorrect assertions.


    I see.
    So the fifty or so bags that I use each month are all over sized bags, even
    though I get them from different suppliers?
    The bags are around 120cm across and deep, although they are not filled
    right to the top, they contain one cubic metre of sand, it doesn't say
    anything about weight, whether tonnes or 885kg on any of them and they are
    manufactered to hold between 500 and 2000kgs of materials...even the small
    bags are 900 X 900 X 900, so I think we can let it lie that it's *about* a
    cubic metre of sand? - without delving further into the realms of
    pedantry? - the Op has ordered a bulk bag of sand, he has not ordered
    855kgs, what he gets may or may not be a tonne or more, but it will be very
    close to a cubic metre.
     
    Phil L, Oct 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Andrew Welham

    Grunff Guest

    Phil L wrote:

    > I see.
    > So the fifty or so bags that I use each month are all over sized bags, even
    > though I get them from different suppliers?
    > The bags are around 120cm across and deep, although they are not filled
    > right to the top, they contain one cubic metre of sand, it doesn't say
    > anything about weight, whether tonnes or 885kg on any of them and they are
    > manufactered to hold between 500 and 2000kgs of materials...even the small
    > bags are 900 X 900 X 900, so I think we can let it lie that it's *about* a
    > cubic metre of sand? - without delving further into the realms of
    > pedantry? - the Op has ordered a bulk bag of sand, he has not ordered
    > 855kgs, what he gets may or may not be a tonne or more, but it will be very
    > close to a cubic metre.


    Indeed, I give up. You win. With arguing like that, there is nowhere
    else to go with the conversation.


    First you say:
    "one bag of around 850kg is a cubic metre"


    Then you say:
    "Sand is less dense than water, given that it's surrounded with gaps, if
    there were no gaps it would be stone."


    Followed by:
    "I know sand doesn't float, that is why the seabed is covered in it"


    And finally:
    "it doesn't say anything about weight, whether tonnes or 885kg on any of
    them and they are manufactered to hold between 500 and 2000kgs of
    materials...even the small bags are 900 X 900 X 900, so I think we can
    let it lie that it's *about* a cubic metre of sand?"


    I can't work out what you're trying to say, so I give up.



    --
    Grunff
     
    Grunff, Oct 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Andrew Welham

    Phil L Guest

    Grunff wrote:
    > Phil L wrote:
    >
    >> I see.
    >> So the fifty or so bags that I use each month are all over sized
    >> bags, even though I get them from different suppliers?
    >> The bags are around 120cm across and deep, although they are not
    >> filled right to the top, they contain one cubic metre of sand, it
    >> doesn't say anything about weight, whether tonnes or 885kg on any of
    >> them and they are manufactered to hold between 500 and 2000kgs of
    >> materials...even the small bags are 900 X 900 X 900, so I think we
    >> can let it lie that it's *about* a cubic metre of sand? - without
    >> delving further into the realms of pedantry? - the Op has ordered a
    >> bulk bag of sand, he has not ordered 855kgs, what he gets may or may
    >> not be a tonne or more, but it will be very close to a cubic metre.

    >
    > Indeed, I give up. You win. With arguing like that, there is nowhere
    > else to go with the conversation.
    >

    Conversation? - what are you trying to do? - I am telling the OP what
    coverage he will get out of one of these bags, I use about 10 or so each
    week, he asked, I told him, you appear to be embroiled in semantics about
    mass, and whether sand will float or not.


    > First you say:
    > "one bag of around 850kg is a cubic metre"
    >
    >

    I know I said that, but as I explained lower down, the bags don't contain
    850kg, unless you imagine that they sell only half bags of wet sand? - it's
    sold by volume, not weight.

    > Then you say:
    > "Sand is less dense than water, given that it's surrounded with gaps,
    > if there were no gaps it would be stone."
    >


    I inserted a smiley after this, have you had a humour bypass?


    >
    > Followed by:
    > "I know sand doesn't float, that is why the seabed is covered in it"
    >
    >

    Why are you insisting on turning this thread into some ridiculous lesson? -
    I don't care whether sand floats, sinks or sprouts wings and flys away and I
    don't suppose anyone else is, what they are interested in is how much sand
    is in a bulk bag, not the weight of it, because if it's only half full of
    wet sand, you only get half as much, which is why they fill them up
    regarldess of water content...two bags of sand could be delivered and while
    they would both contain the same amount of sand, one would be double the
    weight of the other

    > And finally:
    > "it doesn't say anything about weight, whether tonnes or 885kg on any
    > of them and they are manufactered to hold between 500 and 2000kgs of
    > materials...even the small bags are 900 X 900 X 900, so I think we can
    > let it lie that it's *about* a cubic metre of sand?"
    >
    >
    > I can't work out what you're trying to say, so I give up.


    OK, if it's too dificult for you to comprehend, but have a think about this:
    which weighs more:

    1) a cubic metre of dry stone
    2) a cubic metre of dry stone, with dry sand poured into all the gaps
    3) a cubic metre of of sand and stone which has been outside in a rainstorm
    for 3 weeks.

    They're all a cubic metre BTW.
     
    Phil L, Oct 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Phil L wrote:

    > I use about fifty tonnes of this every month


    What on earth do you do with it?


    --
    Dave
    The Medway Handyman
    www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
    01634 717930
    07850 597257
     
    The Medway Handyman, Oct 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dave
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    3,419
    The Natural Philosopher
    Jun 7, 2005
  2. Tim Downie
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,015
    Tim Downie
    Jun 6, 2007
  3. David Graham

    Retexture - to sand or not to sand?

    David Graham, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Home Repair
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    158
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    225
    larry
    Jun 5, 2006
  5. Your Local Pool Guy

    Changing Sand in Your Sand Pool Filter

    Your Local Pool Guy, Jan 3, 2007, in forum: Home Repair
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    584
    Your Local Pool Guy
    Jan 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page