Convert Dan (石) to US cups
East Asia · East Asian Volume · active · modern
Conventional value The unit is customary but its modern value is settled and widely cited; the arithmetic itself is exact.
Quick answer
1 Dan (石) = 422.675 US cups
1 Dan (石) = 422.675 US cups. Dan (石) is a traditional volume unit from East Asia.
Convert any amount
Dan (石) to US cups table
| Dan (石) | US cups |
|---|---|
| 0.25 Dan (石) | 105.669 US cups |
| 0.5 Dan (石) | 211.338 US cups |
| 1 Dan (石) | 422.675 US cups |
| 2 Dan (石) | 845.351 US cups |
| 3 Dan (石) | 1,268.03 US cups |
| 4 Dan (石) | 1,690.7 US cups |
| 5 Dan (石) | 2,113.38 US cups |
| 10 Dan (石) | 4,226.75 US cups |
| 20 Dan (石) | 8,453.51 US cups |
| 25 Dan (石) | 10,566.9 US cups |
| 50 Dan (石) | 21,133.8 US cups |
| 100 Dan (石) | 42,267.5 US cups |
About the Dan (石)
1 Dan = 10 Dou = 100 Liters.
- Symbol
- 石
- Value in SI
- 1 Dan (石) = 100 litre
- Typical use
- trade, agriculture
- Source
- UnitConvertLab measurement atlas
Every atlas conversion routes through the SI litre. See our methodology and data provenance pages for how these values are sourced and verified.
Frequently asked
How many US cups are in a Dan (石)?
1 Dan (石) = 422.675 US cups. Multiply the number of Dan (石) by 422.67528 to get US cups.
What is Dan (石) used for?
1 Dan = 10 Dou = 100 Liters. It is classified as active and dates from the modern period.
Is the Dan (石) value exact?
Yes for practical purposes. UnitConvertLab converts every atlas unit through the SI litre, so the arithmetic itself introduces no rounding beyond the digits shown.
How reliable is this Dan (石) conversion?
Conventional value — The unit is customary but its modern value is settled and widely cited; the arithmetic itself is exact. Source: UnitConvertLab measurement atlas.
Cite this page
UnitConvertLab. (2026). Convert Dan (石) to US cups. UnitConvertLab. Retrieved from https://unitconvertlab.com/regional/dan-vol-to-us-cup
Report an incorrect value or source
Regional units vary by district and by century. If this figure, its variant list or its citation is wrong where you are, tell us — the report carries the page context automatically.