It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Help me ATS...Calculating shipping volume of boxes. ETA; ANSWERED

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 08:54 PM
Hello All,

I am trying to calculate the volume of several packed boxes for shipping. The value they need from me is to be in cubic meters. I only have a tape that measures in inches/feet. I know L x W x H = cubic. My problem is that once i convert to metric all the numbers get wonkey.

Example;

24" x 19" x 21" = 9576" cubed. divide by 1728 to get 5.55 cubic feet(rounding up to the hundredth)
Converting this with an online converter into metric the result is
0.16 cubic meters(again rounding up)

0.16 cubic meters does not even sound close.
Am i just imagining it should be more?
did i calculate incorrectly?

Any help guidance is appreciated. I need to arraign for a cross pacific move and this part is vital to my goal.
edit on 12/28/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/28/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 08:55 PM

Wouldn't you divide by 144 to get cubic feet?

Never mind,,, that's for square feet...
Must be the rum and coke

edit on 28-12-2016 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 08:58 PM

Hope it helps...

cubic inches to cubic meters

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:01 PM

Maybe, but i read in a forum, that inches once cubed is to be divide by 1728 for cubic feet. 1728 is suppose to be the number of cubic inches in a cubic foot 12" x 12" x 12" does indeed equal 1728. so i believe i am on the right track, but may be mistaken. 5.5 cubic feet sounds right for the box. the metric conversion of 0.16 however sounds off to me

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:01 PM

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:08 PM
WOW using that one may cause trouble..as a test i input 2.. it says 2 cubic inches is 3.2774e-5 cubic METERS(!!!!!)..Just try the page and input 2 inches cubed for a test. That is not right at all.
I'm using a similar googled page once i converted to cubic feet, and same oddity but it seems to be on the short side as I described above.

this is making me grey.

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:15 PM
So in short, is 5.55 cubic feet = 0.16 cubic meters? It really doesn't seem right.
edit on 12/28/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

IF it is right then woohoo! way less shipping cost. If it is wrong, MAJOR issues will abound.
edit on 12/28/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:21 PM

.1618 m^3

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:26 PM
the mathematics is correct

0.16 cubic meteres = a box 1 m * 1m * 16 cm

would it help allay you feears - if i deconstruct this " from the other end " ???

thats also 1m * 50cm * 32cm

convered to merkin

39 inches * 19 inches * 12 inches

the maths is right - just send the box

cubic meters are HUUUGE

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:31 PM
I thought shipping weight is usually more the determining factor. Usually the box dimensions are more of a modifier in comparison. Where you go to set up the labels should ask you the dimensions, and then spit you out the fees?

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:40 PM

edit on 28-12-2016 by Blastoff because: Sorry, problems with phone.

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:44 PM

I am shipping by container ship, they usually only care about volume in this case. Air freight care a lot about the weight though.

I ran around the baranguy(neighborhood), found a metric tape, and crunched numbers, and it appears it is correct. just seems off, but i will trust the numbers now.

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:45 PM
Problem solved. Thank you all participating in my volumetric delusion.

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:48 PM

Yes apparently they are huge.

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:46 PM

A cubic meter is a bit (10% ish) larger than a cubic yard.

1 metre = 39 inches approx.

P

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:10 AM
In shipping, both the weight and the volume is examined.
There is a calcule for the volume to turn it into an equivalent weight.

By sea, it is 1m3 = 1T
By route it is 3m3 = 1T
By air it is 6m3 = 1T

Once you transform that equivalent, the larger one is chosen for the base of tarification.

That is why they put emphasis on providing the volume, they must have that, and explaining the whole tarification process (which gets even more complicated...) is simply not bothered with in explaining to clients.

Changing the american system of measurement to metric is hard sometimes if you aren't used to having a sense of one or the other. I once calculated a smallish expedition and it took me a day to realize that it couldn't possibly have a net volume of 18m3. Simply because I was not automatically picturing what that kind of volume is.

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 03:20 AM

Not that huge are they?

Imperial measurements are so dumb.... Those IBC's above are 1 cubic metres. They hold 1000 litres of water which weighs 1000kgs.

So much simpler!

edit on 29/12/16 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 04:19 AM
I do agree that metric measurements are far more efficient, but at the time I only had a merikan tape measure, thus leading to my confusion through the conversion.

Somehow 7 of these boxes equates to a ___hair more than 1 cubic meter. I'm still baffled. But I have to go with with the math.

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 04:24 AM

So I'm getting charged for a ton per m^3?, someone is making money.
edit on 12/29/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 04:35 AM

big enough for people who are used to the silly merkin insistance on using cubic feet and cubic inches as dry volumes [ dont get me started on thier special smalll gallon ]

nut hey i digress

and i do agree - SI units FTW

hint - how many merkins can work out the weight of a pure aluminium slab - 39 inches * 39 inches * 4 inch - in thier heads ???

i can give you the metric mass of 1m *1m * 100mm [ the equivilant size ] as 270 kg - instantly

simples

new topics

top topics

1