Hi and thanks for the reply.

Well it's a good point, but i have never seen any other type of crystal size when i buy "granulated" sugar. it's always the same size or very close at least no matter what brand i get.
Also, when i looked up the spec's on the web i specified "granulated" and i dont expect to see 1/4 inch long "grans" i expect to see them the same size as usual. Rock candy on the other hand can have very big crystals.
Also, i dont expect to have to calculate the amount of air taken up by the volume because i cant see anyone else doing that either. Granulated sugar i think is granulated sugar and it's expected to have air spaces.
Now if i looked up sugar as a solid, i would expect the density to be greater than granulated.
What do you think about this?

A little research online finds that granulated sugar (the default type) has a grain size of about .3 to .55 mm and depending on production, the distribution of those sizes varies. So, the online sources would have to choose some particular example of granulated sugar, or, give a range. If no range is given, the density would be an arbitrary number based on a particular product or even batch.

 

Refined sugar in bulk (not a frequent cargo) seems to have a stow factor of 1,2 MT/m3.

What units are MT/m3 ?
I guess the m3 is cubic meters, but what is "MT" ?

 

A little research online finds that granulated sugar (the default type) has a grain size of about .3 to .55 mm and depending on production, the distribution of those sizes varies. So, the online sources would have to choose some particular example of granulated sugar, or, give a range. If no range is given, the density would be an arbitrary number based on a particular product or even batch.

That's interesting but if we reckon that all sites vary, then that may be one of the sites that also varies and so the information my not be correct either.
I say this because i have purchased sugar a LOT of times in the past, and it always appears to be ABOUT the same size (grains). If there is a variation i would expect it to be small.
However, i will compare some sugar grains from two different manufacturers.

Actually i just did this before posting. There could be a difference, one did look smaller than the other. It's hard to tell just how much smaller but i would say a max of 2 to 1 maybe 1.5 to 1.
Next, to model the grains and do some finite analysis to see what the difference could mean. Also, i could just measure both in the graduated cylinder and see what difference there is.

If they are too different than the only way is to measure the brand i intend to use before buying a new container(s). Either that or go by some maximum size and therefore some maximum volume or minimum density.

 

Good information.

It is interesting the kinds of problems that come up in life

 

What units are MT/m3 ?
I guess the m3 is cubic meters, but what is "MT" ?

Metric tons MrAl.

Stow factors for bulk cargoes, used to be given in LT/cuft (long tons / cubic feet) in the past but nowadays you expect them to be MT/m3. lf units are not mentioned, better you ask because you never know what the other side has in mind.

/Edit - See the correction I made to my post (#6) /Edit

 

Metric tons MrAl.

Stow factors for bulk cargoes, used to be given in LT/cuft (long tons / cubic feet) in the past but nowadays you expect them to be MT/m3. lf units are not mentioned, better you ask because you never know what the other side has in mind.

Ok thanks, now i can compare that to my own measurement i did a little while ago.

I got a factor of very close to 30, so the pounds times 30 equals the cubic inches volume.
Or of course, the cubic inch volume divided by 30 equals the weight in pounds.
This agrees with one web site i found very closely.

If you feel like it you can compere the weight/volume you gave to this measurement.

 

I think because the particles are so fine there is little settling of the contents but i have never looked into this with granulated sugar.

Normal table salt certainly settles and that is finer than granulated sugar.
Put some sugar in your jar and mark the level then tap the jar and I expect you will see the apparent volume of the sugar reduces.

 

Normal table salt certainly settles and that is finer than granulated sugar.
Put some sugar in your jar and mark the level then tap the jar and I expect you will see the apparent volume of the sugar reduces.

Ok i just tried it with my graduated cylinder and the height of the column of sugar was about 6 inches high to start and after tapping multiple times it went down roughly 1/8 of an inch.
Now i wonder if the shape of the container has an effect on the settling.
I wanted to do a finite element analysis just for the fun of it but i have to figure out what shape to make the particles. Maybe look at several under a microscope and figure out how the shapes vary. I'll end up with a fixed shape plus come probably smaller random part that makes them all a little different.

Maybe you could try it with your salt shaker. I could try that too.

 

Fill the jar with water then weigh it in grams (W). Now the volume of one gram of pure H2O is by definition one cubic centimeter, so just take the cube root of the weight of the water in order to obtain the jar's interior volume (V).

According to this site granulated sugar typically weighs about 705 kg per cubic meter, or 0.705 grams per cubic centimeter (S). Which means that a maximum (M) = V * S grams of sugar will fit into the jar. And thus if M is greater than ~1814.37 grams (4 lbs that is) then most likely it will not.

 

Ok thanks, now i can compare that to my own measurement i did a little while ago.

I got a factor of very close to 30, so the pounds times 30 equals the cubic inches volume.
Or of course, the cubic inch volume divided by 30 equals the weight in pounds.
This agrees with one web site i found very closely.

If you feel like it you can compere the weight/volume you gave to this measurement.

Hi MrAl, please check the correction I made to my post (#6).

 

Fine particle packing efficiency changes significantly depending on how the package is handled. There are all kinds of ASTM, SAE, DIN, JST and ISO standards relating to measuring density of flowable solids (grains, granules, powders, crystals, ...). Apparent density, bulk density or Tap density are a few to get you started. "Settling during transport" is a major issue - as is caking, vacuum packing. Particle size determines how easily you achieve tap density but shape of the particle and particle size distribution play much greater roles. A mono-distribution packs less than a broad distribution. This plays a role in sintered ferrite ceramics and pressed iron powder cores for inductors and heat sinks made of pressed/sintered copper. Air space greatly reduces permeability and thermal conductivity by unexpectedly large factors for minor micro-bubbles of free space.

 

Fill the jar with water then weigh it in grams (W). Now the volume of one gram of pure H2O is by definition one cubic centimeter, so just take the cube root of the weight of the water in order to obtain the jar's interior volume (V).

According to this site granulated sugar typically weighs about 705 kg per cubic meter, or 0.705 grams per cubic centimeter (S). Which means that a maximum (M) = V * S grams of sugar will fit into the jar. And thus if M is greater than ~1814.37 grams (4 lbs that is) then most likely it will not.

Hello and thanks for the reply.

Well i dont seem to have any problem calculating the volume of the jar, at least not this one, but for other jars that could help a lot because they are oddly shaped so that's a good idea i will have to try it.

I will compare your method about the density with my own measurements too.,

 

Hi MrAl, please check the correction I made to my post (#6).

So you are saying that there is 1.2 cubic meters per metric ton?
Note that when you write it out like this it is hard to misunderstand.
That number might make sense because at the right temperature and pressure water is 1 cubic meter per metric ton and of course i would expect that to be more dense than sugar.

 

I found this link:

https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/food-volume-to-weight

and the calculation on that site matches my manual measurement to within 10 percent. I calculated 2.3 lbs and the web site comes up with 2.1 lbs. That should be close enough i guess.

I might test a different brand of sugar next.

The funny thing is though, when i first looked on the web the numbers i found told me that a 4 lb bag of sugare would 'just' fit into a container of 69 cubic inches but that was way off.

 

Fine particle packing efficiency changes significantly depending on how the package is handled. There are all kinds of ASTM, SAE, DIN, JST and ISO standards relating to measuring density of flowable solids (grains, granules, powders, crystals, ...). Apparent density, bulk density or Tap density are a few to get you started. "Settling during transport" is a major issue - as is caking, vacuum packing. Particle size determines how easily you achieve tap density but shape of the particle and particle size distribution play much greater roles. A mono-distribution packs less than a broad distribution. This plays a role in sintered ferrite ceramics and pressed iron powder cores for inductors and heat sinks made of pressed/sintered copper. Air space greatly reduces permeability and thermal conductivity by unexpectedly large factors for minor micro-bubbles of free space.

I did not see that much of a settling factor for the sugar i tested though. Something like 2 percent, so that would change a volume from 1.000 cubic inch to 0.980 cubic inches.

I cant compare granule size that well but perhaps i will in the future.

 

wonder if the humidity affects the results,
they form more / bigger lumps ?
or if to wet, they dissolve, does that take less space or more ?

 

I found this link:


https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/food-volume-to-weight


and the calculation on that site matches my manual measurement to within 10 percent. I calculated 2.3 lbs and the web site comes up with 2.1 lbs. That should be close enough i guess.


I might test a different brand of sugar next.


The funny thing is though, when i first looked on the web the numbers i found told me that a 4 lb bag of sugare would 'just' fit into a container of 69 cubic inches but that was way off.

Well if you divide 1814.37 by that factor of 0.705 you get 2573.58 cubic centimeters. Taking the cube root gives you a cube of granulated sugar with side lengths measuring roughly 13.7 cm, or 5.39".

 

Well if you divide 1814.37 by that factor of 0.705 you get 2573.58 cubic centimeters. Taking the cube root gives you a cube of granulated sugar with side lengths measuring roughly 13.7 cm, or 5.39".

What factor? What are you doing?:

 

What factor? What are you doing?:

The factor S (ostensibly 0.705 grams per cubic centimeter) is simply the density of granulated sugar. And since water is precisely 1.0 gm/cm^3 it thereby effectively acts as measure of unity (in the sense that the sugar is 70.5% the mass of water and 1/S or 142% of its volume).

And thus multiplying 1814.37 gm (4 lbs) with the inverse of S (or by dividing by S itself) "scales" a volume of water to that of an equal-weighted volume of sugar.

 

I can tell how I would calculate it. I use what is called VMD (Volume Metered Density) sometimes when working with smokeless rifle powders for my hand loading endeavors. Most of the time I just weigh my charges but the VMD method works fine also, or as we say close enough. Pure water has a density of 1.0 (One). Tap water will be close enough to a density of one. Using a 3.1 cc dipper I weighed 3.1 cc of granulated everyday sugar and it weighed 42.7 grains on one of my reloading scales. Here is an explanation of VMD. If I fill my 3.1cc dipper with tap water and weigh it I get 3.1 grams so if I divide my volume 3.1cc by the weight in grams 3.1 I get 1.0 which is what I expect.

So in my test a 3.1cc volume of granulated sugar would be 2.7 weight in grams / 3.1 Volume of dipper = 0.870 for the VMD of granulated sugar. 3.1 * 0.870 = 2.697 or call it 2.7.

Now that said I haven't a clue how hygroscopic sugar is. How much does it matter? Beats me but I doubt the weight would change much in that 5 Lbs of sugar unless it is saturated will weigh close enough to 5.0 Lbs. Does the size of the crystals matter? Not much as this works for stick powder, ball powder and flake powder in reloading both handgun and rifle loads. Just a matter of converting grams to Lbs. So 4.0 US Lbs = 1814.37 grams.

That or use a graduated cylinder and dump 4.0 Lbs of sugar in it and see what you get.

The link pretty much covers how to get a Volume Metered Density. That's how I would do it. You only need to measure the weight of a small quantity of sugar as long as it's a known volume.

Ron