groundforce
-
R Healey
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:24 pm
What a great site, seems to have all the answers. I only have one query after watching an episode of groundforce old tommy laid two round patios in about an hour , I wondered what you thought of his method. Seems to consist of about 2 inches of wet mortar on bare earth and then pointed up with a dry mix of sand cement brushed in afterwards.I would hate to have to get that lot of the back of them if it ever had to come up.
-
84-1093879891
Tommy chooses to lay on a wet mix, and there's nowt wrong with that. Jointing with a dry mix in such a method is fine, because there is virtually no delay between laying and jointing, and then the dry-mix draws moisture from the wet bedding, which initiates curing.
Although this is not my preferred way of working (I prefer a semi-dry bed and mortar pointing) it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I prefer my way; Tommy prefers his, but, in effect, we are both laying on a full bed with a cement-bound jointing, and so we are both equally "right" - I'm just grateful that he doesn't promote the despised spot-bedding method that I still see being demostrated on some of the other DIY/makeover programs!
Having worked with all of the Groundforce team members on a previous website, I know they are very careful to show 'best practice' as far as possible, and, to be fair, there's nothing I can fault with most of the paving methods shown, bearing in mind the limited time-span they have onsite and the non-vehicular use of their efforts. Some of the methods shown are not suitable for driveway or heavy-use construction, but then, the GF team never try to give the impression that they are.
It's worth pointing out that Tommy's bedding mix is different to mine. From memory, I seem to recall that he uses a combination of sharp and soft sand, whereas I will only use sharp/grit sand, but then, I think I've heard him explain his preference by arguing that the soft sand makes for a better binder in a wet mix, something that doesn't come into the equation with a semi-dry method.
So - you get to choose. After almost 40 years of working with flags and other pavings, I can't be persuaded that wet bedding is a better choice, but I dare say that there are some flaggers that can't work with a semi-dry mix. :)
Although this is not my preferred way of working (I prefer a semi-dry bed and mortar pointing) it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I prefer my way; Tommy prefers his, but, in effect, we are both laying on a full bed with a cement-bound jointing, and so we are both equally "right" - I'm just grateful that he doesn't promote the despised spot-bedding method that I still see being demostrated on some of the other DIY/makeover programs!
Having worked with all of the Groundforce team members on a previous website, I know they are very careful to show 'best practice' as far as possible, and, to be fair, there's nothing I can fault with most of the paving methods shown, bearing in mind the limited time-span they have onsite and the non-vehicular use of their efforts. Some of the methods shown are not suitable for driveway or heavy-use construction, but then, the GF team never try to give the impression that they are.
It's worth pointing out that Tommy's bedding mix is different to mine. From memory, I seem to recall that he uses a combination of sharp and soft sand, whereas I will only use sharp/grit sand, but then, I think I've heard him explain his preference by arguing that the soft sand makes for a better binder in a wet mix, something that doesn't come into the equation with a semi-dry method.
So - you get to choose. After almost 40 years of working with flags and other pavings, I can't be persuaded that wet bedding is a better choice, but I dare say that there are some flaggers that can't work with a semi-dry mix. :)
-
R Healey
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:24 pm
I see what your saying about choices of bedding material (horses for courses and all that ) but it has left me a bit puzzled. I recently posted a query about depth of sub base prior to laying a patio for someone. I priced the job based on 75 mm of compacted sub base 50mm of bedding material. All in all a lot of digging and wheelbarrowing for a relatively light use patio. If i went the groundforce route then there seems to be no sub base and i may have priced myself out of a job, but i guess I guess given another twenty years i might get the job sussed out.
-
84-1093879891
A sub-base isn't necessary for a patio. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use a sub-base, just that it isn't essential, as it is with a vehicular area such as a driveway.
If the sub-grade, when reduced to formation level, is found to be firm and stable, then there's nowt wrong with using a 35-50mm bed of sand or cement-bound material as a 'stand alone' bedding layer, as it says on the Patios page.
In your previous question, you stated that your were planning to use a sub-base, so I assumed there was some reason why you thought a sub-base was required, such as a lift in levels or a suspect sub-grade, and you seemed to be querying the minimum thickness for a sub-base, which is where the figure of 75m came from. If you'd asked whether a sub-base was essential, you'd have got a different answer.
I hope that's cleared it up for you. :)
If the sub-grade, when reduced to formation level, is found to be firm and stable, then there's nowt wrong with using a 35-50mm bed of sand or cement-bound material as a 'stand alone' bedding layer, as it says on the Patios page.
In your previous question, you stated that your were planning to use a sub-base, so I assumed there was some reason why you thought a sub-base was required, such as a lift in levels or a suspect sub-grade, and you seemed to be querying the minimum thickness for a sub-base, which is where the figure of 75m came from. If you'd asked whether a sub-base was essential, you'd have got a different answer.
I hope that's cleared it up for you. :)