Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Convert m3 to metric tonne

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Convert m3 to metric tonne

    what is the easiest formula to convert cubic meter(m3) to metric tonne(mt)?

  • #2
    Well, the first, and arguably the only, step is to multiply the density of our material, ideally in kg/m3 by the amount of material, in cubic meters, and divide by 1000.


    If it is not in kg/m3 then we need to convert the measurements we have into kg/m3.

    If we have lbs/ft3, to convert this,
    first convert our lbs to kg,
    then convert our cubic feet to cubic meters.
    and then divide the kg by the m3

    for example if we have 12 lbs/ft3 for some material:
    convert lbs to kg :12 to 5.44
    convert ft3 to m3: 1 to 0.028
    Then divide the first by the second: 5.44/0.028 = 192.22kg/m3.

    If we have 54 m3 of material, then 54 * 192.22kg/m3 = 10,379.9 kg / 10 = 1,037.99 mt
    Last edited by gubment_cheez; 02-08-2021, 08:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you Gubment_cheez.
      If we have data only in cubic meter(m3), for example 2,156,000 m3= ? metric tonne. any direct formula or factors? how about using a specific gravity (S.G.) value to convert the cubic meter(m3) to metric tonne? Thank you very much.

      Comment


      • #4
        This sounds like a school question. I don't give answers to school questions since they should be something you're learning from the professor. However in this case, I will tell you that specific gravity, or relative density, is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a given reference material.
        In SI units, the density of water is 1 g/cm3 or 1000 kg/m3.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, I am a school student. Im sorry. I just wanted to verify, starting from basic school question. Thank you.
          some people will just multiply the m3 with 0.001 to get the metric tonne value, but some people will just use the S.G. multiply with the m3.
          for instance, 5m3 of basalt= 5m3 x 2.67=13.35 metric tonne(mt).
          Note: 2.67 is the S.G. for basalt.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by fredjames View Post
            Well, I am a school student. Im sorry. I just wanted to verify, starting from basic school question. Thank you.
            some people will just multiply the m3 with 0.001 to get the metric tonne value, but some people will just use the S.G. multiply with the m3.
            for instance, 5m3 of basalt= 5m3 x 2.67=13.35 metric tonne(mt).
            Note: 2.67 is the S.G. for basalt.
            You need to know the specic gravity of density and watch your units. Obviously a cubic meter of air, water, steel, or gold have very different masses. A formula that does not include density of SG is incorrect.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thank you John. I appreciate your response. I'm still learning and apology if my question sounds like very school. Oya...what is the difference between
              1) Specific Gravity (no unit, sometime unit is attached)
              2. Relative Density or Actual Specific Gravity
              3. Specific Gravity of Density
              4. Density of Specific Gravity

              Thank you very much.
              Fred James.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by fredjames View Post
                Thank you John. I appreciate your response. I'm still learning and apology if my question sounds like very school. Oya...what is the difference between
                1) Specific Gravity (no unit, sometime unit is attached)
                2. Relative Density or Actual Specific Gravity
                3. Specific Gravity of Density
                4. Density of Specific Gravity

                Thank you very much.
                Fred James.
                I've never encountered the last two terms.

                Density is the actual mass divided by the actual volume. Units are commonly grams per cubic centimeter or kilograms per cubic meter (the second is 1000X larger).

                Specific gravity is the ratio of density of the sample to density of water. The density of water is often approximated as 1 g/cm or 1000 kg/m, but it is actually a function of temperature, as is the density of the sample. Specific gravity usually gives the temperature of the sample and of the comparison water, which may not be the same. You may see things like SG (20 C/4 C), which means the sample is at 20 C, and the water is at 4 C (the temperature of maximum density). The term "specific gravity" has fallen into disfavor, and "relative density" is the preferred term. However, they basically mean the same thing.

                The density of liquids is commonly measured by a hydrometer, a calibrated float with a "ruler" on the stem. The hydrometer, the water and the sample all have temperature coefficients, so the issue can get very confusing. However, if the specified temperatures are all the same, the calibration of the hydrometer can be easily checked with water, so many people prefer to use relative density (aka specific gravity) rather than hydrometers reading directly in density.

                In computation, it is much easier to use density, but relative density or specific gravity is still popular, I think mostly due to the ease of checking hydrometer calibration. In most cases, to use specific gravity, it is necessary to look up the density of water at the reference temperature to convert SG to density. However for rough work, you can just assume the water is roughly 1000 kg/m, as long as it is relatively cool.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks....I appreciate.
                  The last two terms are from your previous text (quoted)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Very good and comprehensive explanation by John S.
                    Thank you soo much.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by fredjames View Post
                      Thanks....I appreciate.
                      The last two terms are from your previous text (quoted)
                      Auto-correct made an auto-mistake which I missed. "Of" should have been "or." In both cases. Sorry about that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X