English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-23 14:37:12 · 4 answers · asked by EdwardLeavitt 1 in Science & Mathematics Physics

4 answers

According to this reference:

www.hort.cornell.edu/department/faculty/good/growon/media/bulkd.html

sand had a bulk density between 100 and 120 lbs/ft^3

I'm sure it depends on average particle size, particle size distribution, and packing.

Based on my experience with a wide variety of powders, but not sand, and the one time I filled sand bags at the head of a flood, and my recent trip to the beach, I would use the lower end around 100 lbs

2006-06-23 14:49:06 · answer #1 · answered by enginerd 6 · 0 0

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awruZ

Assuming the same steel in each, the answer depends on the size and shape of the container. And on whether you use random packing or ordered packing. In other words, this is a packing problem, which gets very complicated, and frequently is solvable only by trial and error. One number stands out, the highest average density – that is, the greatest fraction of space occupied by spheres – that can be achieved by a regular lattice arrangement is: π / 3√2 or 0.74048. This is independent of sphere size. What that means, the packing will give you about equal results for both sizes. Of course there are exceptions. A cubic foot shaped as a long thin rectangle, say 3/8" x 3/8" by 12288", one cubic foot, will not hold any 1/2 inch balls at all.

2016-04-07 00:19:23 · answer #2 · answered by Jean 4 · 0 0

93 pounds or 44 kilos, not stagged.

2006-06-23 14:41:46 · answer #3 · answered by Manny 5 · 0 1

40lbs

2006-06-23 14:40:16 · answer #4 · answered by theevilfez 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers