Traffic & Transport
Anna van Buerenplein 1
2595 DA Den Haag
P.O. Box 96800
2509 JE The Hague
The Netherlands

TNO report
TNO 2019 R11022v3

www.tno.nl

Inventory of technologies for monitoring,
tracking and identification of maritime
containers and their cargo

T +31 88 866 00 00

Date

25 September 2019

Author(s)

Copy no
Number of pages
Sponsor
Project name

2019-STL-REP-100322570
44 (incl. appendices)
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Directorate for
Maritime Affairs, Shipping Policy Division
Inventory of technologies for monitoring, tracking and identification
of maritime containers and their cargo
060.39563

Project number

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced and/or published by print, photoprint,
microfilm or any other means without the previous written consent of TNO.
In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of contracting
parties are subject to either the General Terms and Conditions for commissions to TNO, or
the relevant agreement concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for
inspection to parties who have a direct interest is permitted.
© 2019 TNO

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

2 / 44

Samenvatting
Dit rapport is opgesteld in opdracht van het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en
Waterstaat naar aanleiding van het incident met de MSC Zoe. Het bevat een
inventarisatie van de technologische mogelijkheden voor het lokaliseren en het
bepalen van de inhoud van containers.
Schepen verliezen soms containers op zee. Het gaat hierbij meestal om geringe
aantallen. MSC Zoë verloor in de nacht van 2 januari 2019 342 containers ten
noorden van de Waddeneilanden. Het duurde enige tijd om vast te stellen hoeveel
containers er overboord gevallen waren.
Deze inventarisatie gaat ook over technologieën die helpen bij het bewaken van de
integriteit van de stuwage van containers tijdens de reis. Dit is relevant omdat
identificatie van het exacte tijdstip en locatie van een incident met overboord
geslagen containers veelal het startpunt is voor effectieve opsporingstechnieken.
Voor de inventarisatie is gebruik gemaakt van desk research, interviews met tien
domeinexperts binnen TNO en interviews met vijf externe experts. Daarmee is
getracht een overzicht te bieden van huidige technologische mogelijkheden. Gezien
de beperkte opdracht kan TNO de volledigheid van de inventarisatie niet
garanderen.
Incident monitoring
Verschillende monitoringmethoden kunnen worden overwogen om te controleren of
containers tijdens de reis nog aan dek staan. De beschreven toepassingen aan
boord van schepen (visuele methoden en scheepssensoren) zijn, afhankelijk van
investeringen door de sector schaalbare oplossingen die ook kosteneffectief
kunnen zijn.
Intelligente beeldanalysetechnieken kunnen sommige van deze technologieën
ondersteunen en zowel de efficiëntie als de effectiviteit verhogen. Als alternatief
kunnen de containers worden uitgerust met sensoren die schokken, vallende
bewegingen of snelle veranderingen in vochtigheid registreren. Dergelijke
conditiemonitoringsmethoden kunnen ook worden ingezet om een mogelijke
inbreuk op de stuwage integriteit te identificeren. Om een en ander kostenefficiënt
uit te voeren zou ook alleen de buitenste en bovenste laag containers uitgerust
kunnen worden met deze sensoren.
Lokaliseren containers
Voor het lokaliseren van containers zijn er verschillende scenario's waarmee
rekening moet worden gehouden. Voor lokalisatie tijdens de reis en zolang
containers drijven kunnen containertrackingtechnologieën zeer effectief zijn.
Afhankelijk van het bereik en de bandbreedte, kunnen daarbij verschillende
communicatietechnologieën worden overwogen. De inzet van LPWAN-oplossingen
laat een snelle groei zien. Deze toepassingen kunnen zowel logistieke als
commerciële functionaliteiten combineren.
Radar en Lidar zijn responsieve technologieën voor lokalisatie wanneer containers
overboord gevallen zijn maar nog drijven. Voor onderwaterdetectie kunnen

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

3 / 44

verschillende sonartechnologieën worden overwogen. Sommige van deze
technologieën kunnen ook fracties van containers lokaliseren. Dit is relevant omdat
een groot aantal containers tijdens of na de val in stukken breekt. de kosten van
inzet van sonartechnologie zijn hoog voor het lokaliseren van individuele
containers.
Inhoud identificatie en detectie
Tenslotte zijn er technologische oplossingen om de inhoud van de container te
achterhalen. Ten eerste kan het logistieke dataspoor worden gevolgd, ofwel via
vervoerdersgegevens, die globale beschrijvingen van de containerinhoud bevatten,
ofwel via visibility systemen, die transactiedata van verschillende order- en
zendingstransacties combineren. Dat laatste is technisch mogelijk, maar praktisch
lastig uitvoerbaar. Alleen als er een sterk commercieel belang is bij het combineren
en vastleggen van verschillende transactiegegevens, kunnen verbindingen worden
gelegd en is end-to-end zichtbaarheid c.q. beschikbaarheid voor de geautoriseerde
gebruiker mogelijk.
Als alternatief kunnen visuele en niet-intrusieve inspectietechnologieën worden
toegepast. Hierbij kan gedacht worden aan röntgen apparatuur zoals ook door de
Inspectiediensten en Douane op terminals wordt gebruikt.
De inventarisatie laat zien dat er voor effectief incident management bij het
verliezen van containers op zee geen standaardoplossing voorhanden is. Het
identificeren van betrokken containers, het bepalen waar deze zijn verloren,
lokaliseren op zee en wat de inhoud van verloren containers is (of kan zijn geweest)
zal een combinatie van verschillende complementaire technologieën vereisen.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

4 / 44

Summary
This report was carried out on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and
Water Management in response to the incident with the MSC Zoe. It contains an
inventory of technological possibilities for container tracking and corresponding
cargo identification.
Incidents with fallen containers occur, often involving a small number of containers.
In the night of January 2nd in 2019, MSC Zoë lost 342 containers northwards of the
Wadden Islands. It took quite a while to conclude how many and which particular
containers were involved, and detailed information on the content of these
containers appeared hard to track down.
This inventory also includes technologies to help monitoring the integrity of the
stowage plan during the voyage. This is relevant since identification of the exact
time and location of an incident with the stowage integrity, is the starting point for
effective localization technologies.
The analysis is based on desk research, interviews with ten domain experts within
TNO and five external experts. In this way, the report offers an extensive overview
of possible technological solutions, though completeness cannot be guaranteed.
Incident monitoring
Several monitoring methods can be considered to check if containers are still
onboard during transport. The ones applied on board of vessels (visual methods
and ship sensors) are – depending on the sector investments - scalable solutions,
and can be rather cost effective as well. Data science or intelligent imaging
techniques can support some of these technologies and increase both efficiency
and effectiveness. Alternatively, the containers can be equipped with sensors that
register shocks, falling movements or quick changes in humidity. These condition
monitoring methods can also identify a possible breach of the stowage integrity. A
cost effective solution might be to equip only the top and outer layer containers in
the stowage plan with these sensors.
Localizing containers
For container localization there are different scenarios to be considered.
For localization during voyage and containers floating above water, container
tracking technologies can be highly effective. Depending on the range and
bandwidth, several communication technologies could be considered. For the
application of end-to-end container tracking, LPWAN solutions show rapid growth.
They combine functionality to comply to both logistical and commercial
requirements.
More responsive above water technologies include radar and lidar. For underwater
detection, several sonar technologies can be considered. Some of these responsive
technologies can also localize fractions of containers. This is relevant since quite a
number of containers break in pieces during or after the fall.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

5 / 44

Cargo identification and detection
Finally, there are technological solutions to track down the container contents.
First, there is the logistics data trail, either via carrier data disclosing high-level
descriptions of the cargo, or via visibility systems that combine different order and
shipment transaction data. The latter is technically possible, but rather challenging
to scale. Only if there is a strong commercial interest to capture and combine these
different transaction data, the connections are also being captured and end-to-end
visibility is available for the authorized user.
Alternatively, visual and non-intrusive inspection technologies could be applied.
Think of röntgen equipment that Customs and inspection administrations use in sea
terminals.
The inventory makes clear that there is no ‘one size fits all solution’ for effective
incident management in case of lost containers during sea voyage. It would require
a combination of different complementary technologies to identify which containers
are involved in the incident, where and when the incident took place, where the lost
containers are situated, and what the content of the involved containers exactly is
(or was).

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

6 / 44

Contents
Samenvatting ........................................................................................................... 2
Summary .................................................................................................................. 4
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7
The key questions...................................................................................................... 8
The problem scope .................................................................................................... 8
Approach ................................................................................................................. 10
Report structure ....................................................................................................... 11

2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

Wireless communication technologies ............................................................... 13
Wireless Local Area Networks ................................................................................. 14
Short range wireless communication....................................................................... 14
Radio-Frequency Identification and Near Field Communication ............................. 15
Cellular communication networks ............................................................................ 16
Low Power Wide Area Networks ............................................................................. 17
Satellite communication ........................................................................................... 18
Network integration technologies ............................................................................ 18
Summary ................................................................................................................. 19

3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Inventory of vessel monitoring methods ............................................................ 20
Visual monitoring methods ...................................................................................... 20
Sensor methods ....................................................................................................... 22
Effectiveness of policies .......................................................................................... 23
Summary ................................................................................................................. 24

4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

Inventory of localisation methods for lost containers....................................... 27
Active container-based localisation and positioning ................................................ 28
Visual detection above water ................................................................................... 29
Underwater detection............................................................................................... 30
Effectiveness of policies .......................................................................................... 31
Summary ................................................................................................................. 31

5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

Inventory of container content identification methods ..................................... 34
Data trail in maritime container transport chains ..................................................... 34
Smart devices for cargo identification ...................................................................... 40
Intrusive and non-intrusive inspection of the container contents ............................ 40
Effectiveness of policies .......................................................................................... 40
Summary ................................................................................................................. 41

6

A step change in container tracking applications ............................................. 43

7

Signature ................................................................................................................ 44

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

1

7 / 44

Introduction
Ships lose containers in the Dutch part of the North Sea almost every year.
The last couple of years average about 25 containers per year. On the night of
January 2nd, 2019, the ship MSC Zoe lost 342 containers - an exceptionally large
number - north of the Wadden Islands. It is difficult to locate containers that have
been fallen overboard. This has been demonstrated with the MSC Zoe, but also
with other incidents. Moreover, it is also difficult to trace the detailed cargo details of
the container that has been fallen overboard. In her letter of 15 January 2019 to the
House of Representatives in response to the incident with MSC Zoe, the Minister of
Infrastructure and Water Management indicated that she would make efforts to
make it easier to detect containers in the event of incidents (she explicitly stated
container chipping) and that she would explore the possibilities for this. In doing so,
it was indicated that agreements to that effect can only be realized in an
international context.
According to Drewry Maritime Research, the global container fleet reached 32.9
million TEU in 2012, mainly standard dry containers. Over 200 countries have ports
open to container ships. Ports measure the volume of containers they handle in
twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU). In 2014, containers handled by all ports worldwide (including empties, transhipments and port handling) are estimated at more
than 680 million TEU. In 2016, the international liner shipping industry transported
approximately 130 million containers packed with cargo (World Shipping Council).
The figure below shows the total losses of containers globally through the years,
based on reported losses by carriers from 80% of the carrier capacity.

Figure 1: Worldwide containers lost at sea

Though this is just a fraction of the total number of transported containers, it may
have a large impact on the environmental and ship safety.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

1.1

8 / 44

The key questions
The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management asked TNO to provide
a clear inventory of:
•
•

The possibilities to track containers when they have fallen off the ship.
The possibilities to know what the content of a found container is.

Within these two topics the following aspects should be highlighted:
1. Which technical solutions are currently available?
2. How effective are the solutions? This should be expressed in terms of
reliability, precision, maturity and constraints.
3. How feasible is the solution? In which the feasibility should be measured in
costs, current applications, future expectations and if the technology is
complementary to other systems.
4. What can be achieved with regulations from international and national
governments?
1.2

The problem scope
An incident in which a ship loses containers, can be described following certain
phases. We have identified five phases to guide this report.
Figure 2 depicts the different stages of incident management related to the ocean
carriage of containers, we use this to describe the different methods and
corresponding technologies.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

Transport

9 / 44

Preventative methods

Accident
•Where?
•When?
•How many containers?

Monitoring methods

Localize
•Floating?
•Sunken?

Localisation methods

Content
•Which containers are
found?
•Content of those?

Identification methods

Integrity
•Container still intact?

Mitigation methods

Figure 2: Diagram of different stages of incident management.

In the diagram five types of methods are identified:
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Preventative methods to prevent the accident by, for example, focusing on
lashing-techniques, locks, vessel stability and weight accuracy.
Monitoring methods to constantly monitor containers during transport in order
to detect accidents immediately. Knowing where and when the accident occurs
can be of valuable input to the localisation methods. Moreover, some of these
methods are also capable of alerting exactly which container is lost.
Localisation methods are techniques to track the containers after they have
fallen overboard.
Identification methods focus on the containers individually, so techniques to
identify which container is found and what their individual content is.
Mitigation methods to limit damage, to ensure a safe way to recover
containers and cargo lost overboard. These are methods that would benefit
damage control, by – for example – techniques to check if the container is
intact or by developing policies to equip dangerous goods with extra tracking
devices.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

10 / 44

In this study report, the inventory of possible techniques focusses on the
monitoring, localisation and identification methods (2, 3 and 4).
So preventative methods and mitigation methods are out of scope.
1.3

Approach
In order to write this report, we performed desk research and interviews with
experts.
The desk research involved a quick scan of relevant studies, articles and research
reports related to the topic. This included TNOs Innovation Radar, which we used
to identify possible relevant technologies such as Lidar and corresponding experts
within the TNO organization for further in-depth interviews. This Innovation Radar
was developed on behalf of the Ministry of Defense and includes an inventory of
relevant Defense-related technologies and innovations, including technologies for
tracking, detecting and localizing physical objects. The innovations include an
analysis of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL). TRLs are a method for
estimating the maturity of technologies during the acquisition phase of a program,
developed at NASA during the 1970s. The European Commission advised EUfunded research and innovation projects to adopt the scale in 2010. TRLs were
consequently used in 2014 in the EU Horizon 2020 program. We’ve filtered the
technological solutions with TRL 7 or higher and selected the ones relevant for
this study.

Figure 3: NASA Technology Readiness Levels

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

11 / 44

The desk research includes among others:
• Reports from SMART-CM: D1.1.1, D6.4.1, D7.3.1 (http://www.smart-cm.eu/)
• Reports from CASSANDRA (
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100060/results/en)
• Reports from CORE (http://www.coreproject.eu/ and
http://www.coreproject.eu/media/16650/17-04-18-coreleaflet.pdf)
• Containers Lost at Sea Reports and studies from the World Shipping Council
(https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/tag/lost-at-sea/)
• Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-14-07: The Containerized
Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea
(https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/lostcontainers.html)
• Papers and documentation corresponding to the debate from May 14th 2019
about the incident with the MSC Zoe and the corresponding Hearing/Round
Table procedure from April 10th 2019
(https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/d
etails?id=2019A00440)
• Wikipedia for several technology descriptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/)

In-house interviews with nine subject matter experts were conducted in
May 2019, representing the following domains: Sustainable Transport and Logistics,
Acoustics and Sonar, Monitoring and Control Services, Networks, Radar, Structural
Dynamics, Electronic Defense, Intelligent Imaging, Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Protection, and Data Science.
In addition, interviews over the telephone with the following external experts were
also held in May 2019 with: Wil van Heeswijk (EC DG Taxud), Jos Koning (Marin),
Robin Puthli (Itude), Joris Tenhagen (Pharox), Henk van Unnik (Tosepo).
Based on the desk research findings and the interviews, we’ve drafted a quick scan
assessment table of technologies and solutions for each application domain.
The tables, presented at the end of chapters 3, 4 and 5, include a quick qualitative
assessment on effectiveness and (commercial) feasibility. The aspects reliability
and costs contain a score on an ordinal scale between 1 and 5. A high score on
reliability means the solution is more reliable in identifying an incident with fallen
containers took place (Chapter 3), in correctly localizing where a container is
(Chapter 4), or in determining what is exactly stuffed inside a container (Chapter 5).
A high score on cost means the solution is rather cost effective. A low score
corresponds to high costs.
1.4

Report structure
The report starts with an overview of wireless communication technologies (satellite
and terrestrial), since there is a lot of attention for the subject of container tracking.
Container tracking technologies can both be applied in the context of incident
identification (monitoring methods) as well as localisation methods to localise the
position of containers and identification methods to identify the contents of a
container.
The chapters thereafter provide an inventory of the technologies per method,
i.e. a chapter on monitoring methods, followed by localisation methods and

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

12 / 44

identification methods. Each of these chapters describes the relevant applied
technologies, highlighting the basic applicability, its effectiveness for the
application under review, and its commercial feasibility. At the end of each chapter,
all mentioned technologies are summarised in an assessment table, with the scores
based on expert judgement and reviewed by the experts interviewed.
Finally, the report is concluded with a description of current container tracking
applications and underlying technologies.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

Wireless communication technologies
In the debates following the MSC Zoë incident, in January 2019, a lot of attention
went out to the topic of container tracking. Most of existing container tracking
technologies make use of wireless radio or satellite communication. Before we
describe the applicability of these technologies for the use of monitoring, tracking or
identifying containers, we start with a brief description of the basic characteristics of
the different wireless communication technologies. In this chapter we frequently
cited technology descriptions from Wikipedia, but did not include these references
each time in the text for readability purposes.
The figure below plots the different wireless communication technologies on their
bandwidth and range characteristics. High bandwidth generally means high power
consumption.
We distinguish six groups, which we describe in the following sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN), such as Wi-Fi (the 802.11 range);
Short range wireless technologies, such as Bluetooth and Zigbee;
Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) and Near Field Communication (NFC);
Cellular communication networks, such as 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G;
Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN), such as LoRa and Sigfox;
Satellite communication, such as VSAT.

Figure 4: A portfolio map of the six groups of wireless communication technologies.

Satellite
Cellular

LPWAN

Cellula
r

WLAN

After describing these technologies in the next sections, a section on network
integration and mesh technologies is added followed by a summary of the
communication technologies.

RFID

2

13 / 44

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

2.1

14 / 44

Wireless Local Area Networks
A Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) is a wireless computer network that links
two or more devices using wireless communication to form a Local Area Network
(LAN) within a limited area such as a home, school, computer laboratory, campus,
office building etc. This gives users the ability to move around within the area and
yet still be connected to the network. Through a gateway, a WLAN can also provide
a connection to the wider Internet. Consider the containers to be equipped with
WLAN-devices and the vessel acting as gateway to offer connectivity to the
internet.
WLANs are based on IEEE 802.11 standards and are marketed under the Wi-Fi
brand name. Wireless LANs have become popular for use in the home and in the
office, due to their ease of installation and use and due to the widespread adoption
in end-user devices such as smartphones, tables, laptops etc. Wi-Fi supports a
high bandwidth (>100 Mbs), has a reach up to 100 meters, and requires a wireless
adapter onto the devices (containers) within the network. The configuration of
hardware and software is relatively simple, and supports quite a large number of
devices for Wi-Fi tracking purposes.

2.2

Short range wireless communication
The short-range communication cluster involves technologies such as Bluetooth,
Zigbee, Wireless Body Area Networks, Wireless Person Area Networks and infrared
communication.

2.2.1

Bluetooth
Bluetooth is a wireless technology standard for exchanging data between fixed
and mobile devices over short distances using short-wavelength Ultra-high
frequency (UHF) radio waves in the industrial, scientific and medical radio bands,
from 2.400 to 2.485 GHz, and building Personal Area Networks (PANs). Bluetooth
uses a lower bandwidth than Wi-Fi, has a reach up to 10 meters, allows for easy
configuration, but supports only connectivity with a limited number of devices.
This makes it less applicable for a ship-containers network application.

2.2.2

Zigbee
Zigbee is an IEEE 802.15.4-based specification suitable for high-level
communication protocols used to create personal area networks with small,
low-power digital radios, such as for home automation, medical device data
collection, and other low-power low-bandwidth needs, designed for small scale
projects which need wireless connection. Hence, Zigbee is a low-power, low data
rate, and close proximity (i.e. personal area) wireless ad hoc network. Its low
power consumption limits transmission distances to 10–100 meters line-of-sight,
depending on power output and environmental characteristics. Zigbee devices
can transmit data over long distances by passing data through a mesh network
of intermediate devices to reach more distant ones. Zigbee is typically used in
low data rate applications that require long battery life and secure networking.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

15 / 44

2.2.3

Wireless Body Area Networks and Wireless Person Area Networks
Wireless networks of wearable computing devices are referred to as Wireless
Body Area Networks (WBAN), or Wireless Person Area Networks (WPAN), refer
to communications applications on, near, and around the human body. These
WBAN and WPAN use respectively the IEEE 802.15.3 and IEEE 802.15.16
communication protocols. They seem less applicable for both container tracking
and ship-container monitoring.

2.2.4

Infrared communication
Infrared (IR) data transmission is employed in short-range communication among
PDSs and handheld devices. Transmitting IR data from one device to another is
sometimes referred to as ‘beaming’. Infrared is the most common way for remote
controls to command appliances. IR does not penetrate walls and so does not
interfere with other devices in adjoining rooms. It could be applicable for on-board
monitoring applications, but does not seem applicable for container tracking.

2.3

Radio-Frequency Identification and Near Field Communication
This group contains Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) and Near Field
Communication (NFC).

2.3.1

Radio-frequency Identification
Radio-frequency Identification (RFID) uses electromagnetic fields to automatically
identify and track tags attached to objects. The tags contain electronically stored
information, for instance the unique container number (ISO 6346 International
Shipping Container Standard Information reporting mark), eventually supported by
cryptography and tag/reader authentication. Moreover, the tags can be either active
or passive.
Active RFID tags have a local power source (e.g. battery) and may operate
hundreds of meters from the RFID reader (using UHF frequency band: 433 MHz
and 915 MHz). There are two kinds of active RFID tags: transponders and beacons.
A transponder only communicates when it's in the immediate vicinity of a reader.
These are commonly used in secure access control and in toll booth payment
systems.
A beacon broadcasts constantly. Active RFID tags require low signal strength to
communicate and can broadcast up to and even beyond a range of 100 meters.
But this has consequences for the battery life. The cost per tag ranges anywhere
from $15 to more than $100, depending on its capabilities. The high cost generally
makes active RFID tags too expensive for simple inventory applications. They are
more applicable for tracking high-value items like cargo.
Passive RFID systems use tags with no internal power source and instead are
powered by the electromagnetic energy transmitted from an RFID reader. The low
price per tag (starting from 5-20 cents per tag) makes employing passive RFID
systems economical for many industries. A battery-assisted passive (BAP) has a
small battery on board and is activated when in the presence of an RFID reader.
This makes them more expensive.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

16 / 44

Passive RFIDs are currently applied in mini-containers for waste collection: the tag
is placed under the edge, whilst waste collection vehicles have an RFID reader in
the lift-arm, able to identify the mini-container, and capturing the weight before and
after emptying.

Figure 5: A passive RFID tag in a waste container

2.3.2

Near-Field Communication
Near-Field communication (NFC) is a set of communication protocols that enable
two electronic devices, one of which is usually a portable device such as a
smartphone. To establish communication, the devices need to be brought within
4 cm (11⁄2 in) of each other. NFC devices are used in contactless payment
systems, similar to those used in credit cards and electronic ticket smart cards and
allow mobile payment to replace or supplement these systems.

2.4

Cellular communication networks
Machine-to-machine connectivity using cellular communication standards 3G,
4G and in the near future 5G are characterised by high data rate and energy use,
resulting in high operating costs to deploy on a large scale for tracking and
localisation purposes. Additional functions are needed in a mobile network to
support network-based localisation, e.g. via the mobile cell tower to which the
device is connected, or more precise methods like triangulation of received signals
via a minimum of three mobile cell towers.
To support machine-to-machine communication (M2M), specific versions are
developed to support IoT with low power consumption, such as GPRS (2G) and
improved versions in 4G such as Narrow-Band IoT (NB-IoT) and LTE-M. In 5G
these versions are further improved to support low data rate communication of IoT
devices.

2.4.1

Narrow-Band Internet of Things
Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) is a 4G radio technology to enable
communication focusing on low cost, long battery life and high connection density.
The narrowband refers to the bandwidth of the communication (200kHz).
It is an operator managed network and operates on licensed spectrum.
The advantage of the narrowband channel width is the guarantee that all signals
get delivered. So, the ship is guaranteed to receive signals from each container if
they remain in range, varying from a few kilometres up until 10 km. The IoT sensors
with battery can be attached to the containers to be tracked.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

17 / 44

2.4.2

Long Term Evolution, category M1
Long Term Evolution category M1 (LTE-M) is an alternative 4G-based IoT solution,
and standardised under the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). LTE-M is a
bit faster and data exchange is real-time, whereas NB-IoT is near real-time within
intervals.

2.5

Low Power Wide Area Networks
In the Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) technology space, there are quite
a number of competing standards and vendors. We will elaborate on LoRa and
Sigfox. Low Power protocols allow for sending and receiving limited amount of data
using limited battery capacity. Coverage on land uses the network of radio masts,
for coverage at open sea and peripheral regions it must fall back on satellite
communication.

2.5.1

LoRa
An LPWAN technology is LoRa: a long range, low power internet of things
technology. It has a range of 2.5-15 km per radio tower.
A difference with the NB-IoT solution is the channel width. The LoRa network
operates on a free unlicensed frequency band, which means that it is not necessary
to make deals with providers. LoRa’s dynamic open ecosystem is ideal for private
networks with customized deployment. Nevertheless, this also gives rise to some
disadvantages: other networks can use the same frequency, there is a fair-use
policy and there is no guarantee that all signals will be delivered. The first in this
list will be difficult in port areas, when other devices may also send signals on the
same frequency causing noise in the network. However, this interference is not
expected on the open sea. The second impediment is the fair-use policy in the
telecom, which states that there is a maximum of ten times an hour to send a
signal. So, the containers can only send signals that they are onboard at the
maximum frequency of six minutes. Lastly, there is no guarantee that signals will
arrive at the gateway. This all has the consequence that, on land, a quarter of the
signals are lost. The expectation is that this number is less at sea, but there will be
false alarms that the system will need to deal with.
In order to apply this technique on maritime container transport monitoring,
containers are equipped with a LoRa-sensor and the ship has its own gateway
(radio masts) and server. This technique is tested in the field and it is found that
the signals of the sensors can travel through the steel of the containers if the
antennas of the sensors are tuned. This even holds for the reefer containers.
Moreover, when this technique is implemented on a ship, the network will send
signals with a radius of ten kilometres around the ship as well.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

18 / 44

An LPWAN container tracking example
An example is the smart container device from Traxens. It uses Tri-band
frequencies (433MHz, 868MHz, 920MHz) and is adaptive to location to meet the
local telecom regulations. The device is equipped with GPS, which will only be used
if the mesh network is not functioning. The mesh network offers connectivity on the
vessel and in container terminals. Moreover, the devices are permanently being
attached, avoiding the problem of reverse logistics of the devices. In addition to the
embedded sensors for monitoring temperature, shocks, GPS location, up to sixteen
remote sensors can be integrated with the device (parent-box) using Near Field
Communication.
CMA-CGM, MSC and Maersk each recently (May 2019) ordered 50,000 trackers
from Traxens, and all obtained an equal share in the company. The smart devices
can monitor GPS position, temperature fluctuations, shocks and container door
openings. A mesh network was specifically designed to function in metallic and
humid environments and communication reaches the deepest levels of the biggest
container vessels.
Other solution providers, such as Globe Tracker or Semtech offer similar LPWAN
based container tracking solutions to ports and container carriers.
2.5.2

Sigfox
Lastly, Sigfox is a French global network operator similar to LoRa. Just like LoRa,
this technology is also proprietary. The costs of the sensors for this network are
lower than of LoRa, but the network also provides a smaller range.

2.6

Satellite communication
Satellite communications use the very high-frequency range of 1–50 gigahertz to
transmit and receive signals. A very small aperture terminal (VSAT) is a two-way
satellite ground station with a dish antenna (around 1 meter). Data rates, in most
cases, range from 4 kbit/s up to 16 Mbit/s. VSATs are used to transmit narrowband
data (e.g., point-of-sale transactions using credit cards, polling or RFID data, or
SCADA), or broadband data (for the provision of satellite Internet access to remote
locations, VoIP or video). A maritime VSAT has features that allow it to be operated
on a ship at sea. This enables it to transmit to and receive from the satellite while
minimising losses and interference with adjacent satellites.
Satellite communication differs from satellite tracking, such as GPS tracking.
The latter is a one-way communication, the satellite sends location, speed, time
and direction data to the GPS device, see section 4.1.1.
Satellite communication uses relatively high power, which makes it a rather
expensive way of communication. As such, it is does not seem a preferable mass
application for container tracking.

2.7

Network integration technologies
This section elaborates on the communication techniques of the previous sections
by combining technologies.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

2.7.1

19 / 44

Wireless Mesh Networks
A Wireless Mesh Network (WMN) is a communications network made up of radio
nodes organized in a mesh topology. The coverage area of all radio nodes working
as a single network is sometimes called a mesh cloud. Access to this mesh cloud
depends on the radio nodes working together to create a radio network. A mesh
network is reliable and offers redundancy. When one node can no longer operate,
the rest of the nodes can still communicate with each other, directly or through one
or more intermediate nodes. Wireless mesh networks work with different wireless
technologies including 802.11 (Wi-Fi), 802.15 (Zigbee), 802.16 (PWAN), cellular
technologies (3G/4G) and need not be restricted to any one technology or protocol.
Mesh network solutions can combine the strengths of the different wireless
communication technologies against reasonable costs, allowing for several
applications in the end-to-end container logistics chain. See also the Traxens
example elaborated in chapter 6.

2.7.2

Wi-Fi Radio-Frequency Identification
To combine active RFID in a network, a communication protocol is required.
This could be Zigbee-enabled RFID networks or Wi-Fi enabled RFID networks.
Wi-Fi-enabled RFID is commonly used for location-based services that track
objects in a specific physical context, like children in a theme park, cars in a
parking lot, equipment in a manufacturing plant, etc. It is considered a more
accurate system than a traditional RFID network for determining the location of
tagged objects. A regular RFID system can give what is called the “choke point”
location, or zone-based location, meaning the location of the tag is known only in
relation to the reader detecting its presence. A Wi-Fi network on the other hand
can determine the precise coordinates of a tag using triangulation methods, similar
to the workings of GPS.

2.8

Summary
This summary highlights the key features and restrictions in the application domain
of maritime container transport.
WLAN technologies such as Wi-Fi require a rather complex configuration and have
a relative high energy consumption. Specific configuration is needed to optimize
this technology for tracking and tracing. Short range technologies such as Zigbee
communicate only over a short distance up to 10 meters and scalability with many
devices in a small geographic range is an issue. Passive RFID is cheap, but
requires readers on very short distance, which makes it less feasible for the use
case of maritime container monitoring. Active RFID uses a battery and signals can
be received at distances up to 100 meters, but they are rather expensive. Cellular
mobile communication uses high energy consumption and is expensive in use.
NB-IoT is rather cheap, has good connectivity inside a vessel, but has no network
coverage at sea. LoRa has lower energy use then NB-IoT, network coverage can
be configured with radio masts on the vessel, but it is a proprietary standard.
In the next chapters, we will elaborate the different stages in an incident with fallen
containers, describing relevant support technologies, starting with the technologies
supporting monitoring methods.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

3

20 / 44

Inventory of vessel monitoring methods
The monitoring techniques are based on checking if all containers are still onboard,
so that it is immediately (real time) known if an incident occurs. Knowing where
and when an incident occurs, increases the chances of finding and recovering
the containers. In order to monitor stowage integrity during transport, these
methods are categorized based on the perspective of incident identification.
Generally, these approaches can be divided into three groups: visual, sensor and
ship-container network.
The first group, visual, refers to the visual confirmation that containers have fallen
overboard. Within this class the containers are observed from the ship in order to
establish the when and where of an incident. The second group, sensor methods,
includes sensors that can be added to the ship, container or cargo in order to detect
the occurrence of an incident. These techniques require adding sensors and will not
only detect an incident, but depending on the solution may also detect which
container is involved in the incident. Lastly, the network-group describes the ship as
its own network, in which the containers are all tagged and in communication with
each other. In this group, like in the sensory-group, an incident will be detected,
and it is known which containers are involved. After discussing the monitoring
methods one by one, this chapter will end with an overall summary.

3.1

Visual monitoring methods
Each standard container carries its own unique ISO 6346 International Shipping
Container Standard Information reporting mark, which can be tracked and
monitored at every major freight terminal the cargo passes through. However, as
this is not a live tracking system, the container’s location is unknown during the
large amount of time it spends between terminals, such as when in transit via rail,
road or sea. There are several techniques to check if containers are onboard by
visual confirmation. The first methods would be by the human eye, either from the
wheelhouse or from regular patrols along the containers. This human-manual
approach is not further discussed here, but rather the technologies to support these
observations.
One of the advantages of these visual methods is that they only need to be installed
on the ship or on a drone, so no adjustments to the containers are needed. When
attached to the ship itself, the devices can be placed strategically to connect them
to the power supplies already onboard. The two drawbacks for these methods are
that they depend on their line of sight - i.e. the specific placement (or flying route)
will determine their effectiveness - and they depend on light waves, which means
they can be blinded by dense fog. Fixed placed sensors should be mounted such
that they cover all possible container locations, likely places include on top of masts
of the vessel and on top of high structures such as the wheelhouse. Three possible
techniques are identified: visual light cameras, lidar and infrared cameras. These
three will be described here, followed by the addition of intelligent imaging which
could be applied on all three techniques.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

3.1.1

21 / 44

Camera technology
A visible light camera is an optical instrument to capture still images or to record
moving images, which are stored in a physical medium such as in a digital system
or on photographic film. When applying camera technology, depending on the
ship, several cameras can be mounted on the ship to monitor the containers.
Using cameras is the cheapest option of the three techniques in this section, but
due to the light sensitivity, the effectiveness of this technique is very sensitive to
weather conditions and the diurnal rhythm. In situations of bad weather, heavy fog
and at night, the quality of the images does not allow for effective monitoring.
A solution to deal with darkness at night would be to periodically turn on the lights
on the deck. These lights are already mounted on the ships, but turned off so that
the crew can see the surroundings with other lights. It is an option though, to turn on
the lights towards the deck every hour or two to check if all containers are still
present. Alternatively, lighting can be added in the near-infrared, allowing ordinary
cameras to work while not disturbing regular night sight of the ship crew as it is not
visible by the human eye.

3.1.2

Lidar technology
Lidar is a surveying method that measures distance to a target by illuminating the
target with pulsed laser light and measuring the reflected pulses with a sensor. This
approach is now used in autonomous cars, in order to avoid accidents but also for
incident detection on cruise vessels. By measuring the distances, this approach can
also detect empty slots in a stowage plan that should have been filled. The lidar
could measure how much lower a stack has become, upon which it can be
calculated how many containers are involved in an incident and have possibly fallen
overboard. As such, it is a more robust approach for monitoring vessel stowage
integrity compared to camera technology. Another advantage over cameras is that
lidar works in daylight as well as during the night. Moreover, lidar is less sensitive to
weather conditions, though it should be noted that extreme weather conditions will
also interfere with the lidar. Nonetheless, in order to pulse laser lights, lidar contains
a rotating mirror. The rotation enables a 360-degree view, but at the same time the
mirror and its monitoring platform are sensitive to the maritime environment
including the salinity of the air.

3.1.3

Infrared cameras
An infrared camera (also called a thermographic camera, thermal imaging camera
or infrared thermography) is a device that forms a heat zone image using infrared
radiation, similar to a common camera that forms an image using visible light.
Instead of the 400–700 nanometre range of the visible light camera, long-wave
infrared cameras typically operate in wavelengths between 8,000 and 14,000 nm
(8-14 µm). Because of that, this type of camera can still see well during the night,
eliminating the diurnal disadvantage of a visible light camera. Besides, it returns
more information than lidar and is less sensitive to weather conditions as it contains
no moving parts. However, it is also the most expensive option of the three.

3.1.4

Intelligent imaging
Additional to each of these visual techniques, the captured images need to be
processed to detect if a container falls overboard. This can be either done manually
or automatically.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

22 / 44

When the images are manually processed, it is possible to either do this
continuously during the journey or only in hindsight when it has been determined
that an incident occurred.
Continuous manual monitoring would be more labour intensive than hindsight
monitoring, but can also call for immediate action, whereas hindsight monitoring
would provide slower damage control. Nonetheless, when computer vision or
artificial intelligence is applied to execute this task, the containers can be constantly
monitored without it being labour intensive. Automatic processing can provide
immediate alerts whenever an incident occurs. Yet, intelligent imaging models will
still need to be developed to handle each type of weather and will still be dependent
on the shortcomings of the visual method used. Building these models is feasible,
but will still require configuration and testing time.
3.2

Sensor methods
With these methods sensor technology is being used on board to detect if slots are
or have become empty or if containers are still onboard. In this definition, sensor
refers to a device to detect changes or events in its environment. We distinguish
two categories of sensor applications: sensors that are applied to either (1) the ship,
or (2) the containers. It should be noted that some of the container sensor
applications and network applications discussed under this section could also be
used for localisation purposes.

3.2.1

Ship sensors
When the ship would be equipped with sensors, it is possible to monitor stowage
integrity and detect if slots for containers are empty or not by the use of magnets.
Slots on a container vessel are represented by a combination of bay number
(2 digits), row number (2 digits) and tier number (2 digits): Slot number 530788
refers to Bay 53, row 07 and tier 88. Currently slot-sensors are used in bicycle
storage to guide cyclists to empty slots. This could also be used for this use case,
in which case the monitoring system could alert the crew if the slot suddenly
changes states (i.e. change from occupied to empty or vice versa). Moreover, if this
system is combined with the stowage plan and the GPS of the ship, it is possible
to know exactly when and where a slot has become unoccupied, meaning that the
corresponding container according to the stowage plan has been unloaded or has
fallen (overboard). However, this option does entail that the entire ship needs to be
adjusted to equip every slot with a sensor and power supply.

3.2.2

Container sensor devices
The other category is to equip the containers with sensors for monitoring stowage
integrity. When it comes to sensors, there is a wide range of what could be
measured, hence we concentrate on the application to monitor if a container is
still on board or not. Note that sensor-enabled container tracking technologies are
discussed in the chapter on localisation methods.
Shock sensors can detect physical shocks, that would indicate if a container is
falling. This technique would hardly render false positive alerts, since the containers
are very steady when they remain onboard. When a container is falling, a signal can
be sent so the data can be combined with the ship’s GPS.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

23 / 44

Position sensors can also detect motion and displacement and can be used in
combination with the right algorithms to identify the tilting of containers.
Temperature and humidity sensors are nowadays used to monitor the condition
inside the container during transport for in perishable supply chains. Quick changes
in the humidity level inside a container may be an indication that the container has
fallen overboard and the container suffers from water ingress.
To monitor stowage integrity, we consider two approaches: (1) deploy all containers
with sensors or (2) deploy only the top layer of containers. If only the top layer of the
containers is tagged and these containers remain on the ship, we can assume there
was no incident for any of the containers. But if an incident takes place, we cannot
determine near real-time how many and which containers were involved in the
incident. If all containers are tagged, it is possible to know exactly which containers
are involved if an incident does occur.
Moreover, all sensors need to communicate the sensing data, requiring a
communication module that can be activated. All these techniques use radio waves
to communicate, but depending on the bandwidth, signals can travel further or have
certain impediments (see chapter 2).
Next, we have to distinguish communication above and below water. Radio-signals
do not travel well through water, so when a container is falling overboard, the ship
can detect the container falling off, but the signal sent from the container will vanish
when the container stops floating. This means that localisation of the container is
aided by knowing when and where the sensor gave a signal, but not by a signal
after being swept overboard and sunk.
3.2.3

Network monitoring methods
In the network methods, the ship is seen as its own computer network. A network is
a way to overlay connections between the containers (nodes) and the ship (central
node). This entails that each container device is a node that can exchange data
using connections between each other and/or between the node and the central
node. The central node functions as a gateway and provides wider connectivity to
the internet via other communication methods.
NB-IoT seems less feasible for vessel network systems, since it does not use a
gateway to the internet but directly connects to 4G networks. Though there are
4G-LTE offshore networks to provide connectivity for offshore platforms
(e.g. Tampnet), full network coverage at open sea is lacking.
LoRa or Sigfox IoT devices on containers creating a network with a gateway on the
vessel connecting to the internet could be combined with shock sensors in order to
lower energy use. In a multisensory configuration, the device only communicates if
triggered by the shock sensor. The application of container tracking in Chapter 6
provides an example of a mesh network typology of LWAN devices.

3.3

Effectiveness of policies
Policies or legislative measures to assure that container vessels have proper
monitoring systems on board may be governed on international level under the
IMO.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

24 / 44

IMO has developed and adopted a number of requirements to ensure the safe
carriage of containers and has also developed specific guidance for packing and
securing of containers. IMO's International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS) includes, in its chapter VI on carriage of cargoes, requirements for
stowage and securing of cargo or cargo units (such as containers).
The International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) provides test procedures
and related strength requirements for containers.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is a mandatory
international code for the maritime transport of dangerous goods in packaged form,
in order to enhance and harmonize the safe carriage of dangerous goods and to
prevent pollution to the environment. The Code sets out in detail the requirements
applicable to each individual substance, material or article, covering matters such
as packing, container traffic and stowage, with particular reference to the
segregation of incompatible substances.
These requirements do not specify if or how integrity of the container stowage plan
should be monitored. New requirements regarding container integrity monitoring
could also be proposed at IMO.
3.4

Summary
In summary, the approaches of monitoring contains during transport to immediately
be aware of an incident, are described by three groups: visual, sensory and
networks.
Using visual methods it is possible to detect an incident using either cameras,
lidar or infrared cameras. These methods require the lowest impact on the ship
and containers, while they will suffice for detection of an incident. Furthermore, if
intelligent models are trained to visually detect where containers are missing and
combined with the stowage plan, it is possible to obtain which containers fall
overboard at which locations and at what time.
When it comes to sensory methods, either slots, containers or cargo needs to be
equipped with sensors. This either requires an investment in the ship’s design, in
large numbers of sensors so containers can send a signal or in obligating clients
into tagging the cargo.
Lastly, the ship can be viewed as a network, in which the option is to deploy all
containers or a subset (for instance only the top layer in the stacks, and/or the
dangerous goods containers.
The summary table below (Table 1) describes the mentioned technologies and
includes a qualitative quick scan assessment of reliability and feasibility aspects.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

25 / 44

Table 1: Overview of the monitoring methods. The effectiveness of the each technique is described in four columns: (1) reliability in terms of a star-rating (1-5 stars, in which more stars
represent a more reliable method), (2) the coverage describes the scope of the method, (3) the automation level indicates if the technique is continuous or manual, and (4) the
limitations provide a list of disadvantages to the method. The last three columns describe the feasibility of the technique, in terms of: (1) scalability defining the domain of the
method, (2) costs in terms of a star-rating (1-5 stars, in which more stars represent a cheaper method) and (3) logistics value to describe the added value in end-to-end logistics.
Effectiveness
Technology

Reliability

Coverage

Feasibility (Commercial)
Automation

Limitations

Scalability

Costs

Logistics Value

- Quality is weather dependent

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

All container vessels



N.A.

level
Camera, manual



Deck of ship

Manual

hindsight

- Needs light source
- Manual observations
- Passive response

Camera, manual



Deck of ship

Manual

continuously

- Quality is weather dependent
- Needs light source
- Manual observations
- Manhours

Camera,



Deck of ship

Continuous

automatic
Lidar, manual

- Quality is weather dependent
- Needs light source



Deck of ship

Manual

hindsight

- Heavy weather can obstruct
- Mirror is sensitive
- Manual observations
- Passive response

Lidar, manual



Deck of ship

Manual

continuously

- Heavy weather can obstruct
- Mirror is sensitive
- Manual observations
- Manhours

Lidar, automatic



Deck of ship

Continuous

- Heavy weather can obstruct
- Mirror is sensitive

Infrared camera,



Deck of ship

Manual

manual hindsight

- Quality is weather dependent
- Manual observations
- Passive response

Infrared camera,



Deck of ship

Manual

- Quality is weather dependent

manual

- Manual observations

continuously

- Manhours

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

26 / 44



Deck of ship

Continuous

- Quality is weather dependent

All container vessels

()

N.A.

Slot-sensors



Every slot

Continuous

- Affects design of the ship

All container vessels



N.A.

Shock sensors



Every

Continuous

- Only detects movement

All containers



- Cargo insurance

Positioning



Continuous

- Only detects movement

All containers



N.A.

Continuous

- No guarantee for incident detection

All containers



- Conditioned transport

Continuous

- No network coverage when fallen overboard,

All containers



- Transhipment (container-crane)

All containers



Infrared camera,
automatic

container
sensors
Temperature/hu

Every
container



midity sensors

Every
container

RFID network



LoRa / Sigfox



Every
container
Every

so only for stowage integrity
Continuous

container

- No guarantee of signal delivery

- Gate in/gate out

- Interference from other devices

- End-to-end container tracking
and tracing

- Fair-use policy
LoRa / Sigfox
with shock
sensor



Every
container

Continuous

- No guarantee of signal delivery

All containers



- End-to-end container tracking

- Interference from other devices

and tracing

- Fair-use policy

- Cargo Insurance

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

4

27 / 44

Inventory of localisation methods for lost containers
These methods focus on finding containers after an incident has occurred. In this
case there are two scenarios: the container communicates its whereabouts, or it
is unknown where the container is. For a container to communicate its location, a
container needs to be equipped with a communication-module. Based on the range
of the communication, the container can be localized from a certain distance.
On the other hand, when a container is not tagged with an active communicationmodule (or the module lies underwater and therefore not transmitting), the
localisation of a container occurs either by accident or by a process consisting of
two phases. In general, these two phases are: defining the search space and the
actual localisation of a container.
The first phase, defining the search space, can be massively improved by knowing
the exact location (where and when) of an incident, which would be obtained by a
monitoring method. Without this information, containers can be lost along the entire
route of the ship, rendering a huge search space. If it is known when and where the
ship lost a container, and what the weight is of the particular container, drifting
models can be used to calculate the probable current location of the container.
In the second phase, a container is found in a certain state: the container has
washed ashore, is floating, is sinking, has sunk or is broken. The last three
scenarios entail that the container can only be detected with techniques that work
underwater, whereas this does not hold for the first two. Therefore, the methods
here are split up into two groups: above water and underwater detection
techniques. Of course, these techniques could still be combined in one vehicle with
underwater as well as above water detection mechanisms.
This section will first describe which communication methods can aid the
localisation of the containers. The second section will focus on above water
detection methods and the last on under water detection methods.

Figure 6: Example of container rescue operation

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

4.1

28 / 44

Active container-based localisation and positioning
As discussed in the previous section on monitoring methods, it is possible to deploy
the container with a smart (communication) device. This can be based on satellite
systems (e.g. GPS or the next-generation Galileo), Wi-Fi access points and cellular
networks (GSM, UMTS, LTE), Short Range Communication Systems and LPWAN
systems, for indoor, outdoor land and sea application.
Localisation and positioning systems can be categorized as active and passive.
In active systems the objects to localize collaborate to the positioning task (e.g. in
the case of a tag transmitting some radio signals for its identification), whereas in
passive systems the localisation targets are non-collaborative (e.g. in the case of
anti-intruder multi-static radar systems). The passive radar technology will be
discussed in the next section.
All active techniques use radio waves to communicate, which entails that
communication under water is not possible. For instance, using GPS for underwater
navigation is quite impossible because high-frequency signal penetrates only about
2 millimetres into the water.
For smart container localisation at sea, only Satellite and LPWAN devices (LoRa or
Sigfox) offer a practical range to localise. These will be discussed in the next
sections.

4.1.1

Global Positioning System tracking
A GPS tracking unit is a navigation device that uses the Global Positioning System
(GPS) to track the device's movements and determine its location. The recorded
location data can either be stored within the tracking unit or transmitted to an
Internet-connected device using the cellular (GPRS or SMS), radio, or satellite
modem embedded in the unit. There are three type of GPS-trackers: data loggers,
data pushers and data pullers.
Data loggers allow downloading of the track log data for further computer analysis.
This does not seem applicable for incident management in the case under
consideration.
Data pushers are the most common type of GPS tracking unit, used for asset
tracking, personal tracking and vehicle tracking systems. Also known as a GPS
beacon, this kind of device pushes (i.e. sends), at regular intervals, the position of
the device as well as other information like speed or altitude to a determined server,
that can store and analyse the data instantly. They can also be configured to
transmit location and telemetric input data when an event (door open/close,
auxiliary equipment on/off, geofence border cross) triggers the unit to transmit data.
Data pullers are also known as GPS Transponders. Unlike data pushers that send
the position of the devices at regular intervals (push technology), these devices are
always on, and can be queried on demand as often as required (pull technology).
These can often be used in the case where the location of the tracker will only need
to be known occasionally e.g. placed in property that may be stolen, or that does
not have a constant source of energy to send data on a regular basis, like freight or
containers.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

29 / 44

4.1.2

LPWAN localisation
As already described in section 3.2.3 on network monitoring methods, the same
technology also allows for tracking and localisation as long as there is connectivity.
If the device signals are no longer received by the vessel (acting as gateway, the
vessel does not stop after an incident and continues its journey), and there is no
coverage from land stations (about 10 km), a patrol boat with radio mast could act
as gateway and be sent to the incident location to localise still floating fallen
containers, as long as the antenna is above water levels.

4.1.3

Device with floating radio antenna
A solution to localise containers even if the container sinks is to equip the container
with a radio antenna, which is connected to a self-inflatable balloon via a long fibre
wire (e.g. 100 meters). Humidity & shock sensors should activate a helium pressure
device that inflates the balloon when it falls and touches the water during voyage.
Even if the container is (slowly) sinking, the balloon with the radio antenna connected via the wire - will keep floating and able to communicate. This innovative
application combines a number of proven technologies, but would need some
development stages to be applied in an integrated way for this particular use case.
Nevertheless, this solution could be considered for containers containing dangerous
goods. Subject matter experts think such a system can be developed against a cost
price of around €50.

4.2

Visual detection above water
Several techniques can aid the discovery of floating containers. When the container
is not tagged (or the tag is under water, while the container still floats) or the
remaining search space is still quite large, only visual methods for detection remain.
To search for containers, two vehicles are commonly used: helicopters and boats.
The techniques to support observations by the human eye are split into these two
approaches.

4.2.1

By helicopter
If a helicopter is used, the observations can be aided by using visual light cameras.
Embedding infrared cameras overcomes some limitations regarding the diurnal
rhythm and weather conditions, as described in the visual monitoring methods.
Moreover, coloured coatings could help in visual recognition. Reflecting coatings or
dedicated colours for dangerous goods containers may be helpful in immediate
recognition of floating dangerous goods containers. However, they make the global
transport system also more vulnerable for terroristic attacks.
Currently search and rescue services use infrared cameras to detect drowning
people during the night. Even more, artificial intelligence can also be used in this
application. AI-models for this particular application do not exist yet, but it should be
possible to recognize floating containers by looking for patterns in waves or colour.
So, building an automatic system is technically feasible and the algorithms are
available, but it would require some training and testing activity to have an
automated solution running.

4.2.2

By ship
From a boat’s perspective, the most relevant technology is radar (radio detection
and ranging). As the acronym says, radar is a detection system that uses radio
waves to detect objects.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

30 / 44

Ships are already supplied with a navigation-radar, but these are not sensitive
enough to detect the containers. Therefore, the radar technology described here
is a separate radar that is dedicated to the detection of floating containers.
Further, this technology works better from a boat than a helicopter due to the
stability of the vehicle. Depending on the height at which the radar is installed on
the boat and the height of the waves, a radar can detect objects with a range of
approximately a kilometre. However, a radar cannot detect if a container is
undamaged, open or broken. Nowadays there are techniques under development
(TLR 5/6) to detect the height of waves by radar, which could also be used for
container detection.
For completeness, another visual technique mentioned before and could be used,
is lidar. This technology cannot be used from a helicopter due to the angle to the
water, but it can be used from a boat. With lidar, floating containers could be
detected, provided that the waves are not too high.
4.3

Underwater detection
Once containers, or parts of containers start sinking, there is a need for specific
underwater technologies. Three underwater techniques are found to help discover
containers: laser, sonar and magnetometers.

4.3.1

Laser or lidar applications
Depending on the conditions of the water, laser or lidar technology can be applied
to investigate the top layer of the water. This is not enough to find containers on
the bottom of the sea, but the advantage of this technique - with respect to the other
two - is that is can be used from a helicopter.

4.3.2

Active sonar applications
The primary detection technique used underwater is sonar. We can distinct active
and passive sonar. In active sonar, the system emits a pulse of sound and an
operator listens for echoes. Passive sonar is listening for the sound made by
vessels, or a pinger. Containers could be equipped by similar transponders/pingers,
but it would be much too expensive and unrealistic according to experts. Below, we
elaborate on active sonar applications. A big advantage of sonar is that it does not
have a restriction on depth. Based on the settings, sonar can be used on any depth.
Moreover, parts of containers will still be detected by sonar. The disadvantages of
sonar are the sensitivity to stability, temperature and salinity. As per the other visual
methods above water, sonar is still being processed manually, but also has the
potential to be supported by artificial intelligence.
Two types of sonar exist: hull mounted and side-scan. The first, hull mounted sonar,
is incorporated into the hull of a ship and detects objects in front of the boat. The
use of these sonars nowadays is mine hunting. But, because of the location in the
hull, this sonar is sensitive to waves. Additionally, the temperature and salinity of
the water differ more on the surface, leading to a lot of fine tuning to have a hull
mounted sonar to detect floating containers.
The second type of sonar are the side-scan sonars. As the name implies, these
detect objects to the side of the device. Furthermore, these are separate devices
that are not incorporated into a boat, but rather attached to a boat by a clip-on
system. This renders the advantage that they can be used by any boat.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

31 / 44

Also, the side-scan sonars can be set to a certain depth, so they can be adapted to
the depth of the sea. The only restriction for depth would be the length of the cable
to the boat. An additional advantage of this is that, the deeper under water, the
stability, temperature and salinity fluctuate less. Thus, this technique is very reliable
under water.
Currently, a special sonar is in development to even detect a container that is
buried under sand by using low frequencies. However, this sonar now works in test
environments, but it is not fully developed to use on the open sea yet.
4.3.3

Magnetometer applications
An alternative to sonar is the magnetometer, which detects steel by using magnetic
properties. These devices are also clip-on systems that need to be dragged behind
a boat. Of course, the distance to the boat needs to be big enough so that the boat
does not interfere with the signals of the magnetometer. This technology can be
used to detect steel objects near the device and downwards from the device.
Compared to sonar, magnetometers have a smaller range of detection and
detection entails that the magnetometer returns blobs rather than images, so it is
not possible to see if a container is intact or not. Another disadvantage of
magnetometers is that the magnetic properties of containers can differ, so there is
no guarantee of detection for all containers. Nevertheless, an advantage of
magnetometers is that these devices can detect a container that is covered in sand.

4.4

Effectiveness of policies
Policies or legislative measures to support the localisation of maritime containers
could be governed from the perspective of maritime safety or from the perspective
of global supply chain security. For maritime safety policies, we refer to the IMO
governance described in section 3.3. For Supply Chain Security, the governance
lies within the European Union. Regulation about bringing containerised cargo into
the European Union does not specify the tracking ability to localise where a
container exactly is when in transit.

4.5

Summary
Either the container communicates its whereabouts, or it is unknown where the
container is. For a container to communicate its location, a container needs to be
equipped with a communication-module, using GPS or LPWAN. When unknown,
finding a container starts with defining a search space. This can be estimated by
drifting models and will become more accurate with more information.
The monitoring methods help in determine the exact location where the incident
took place, drifting models provide an estimate of the search area.
While the containers remain above the surface, multiple visual methods can be
used to search for them: cameras or infrared cameras from helicopters or, radar
or lidar from a boat. Once the container has ceased to float, a laser from a
helicopter could detect the container if the water is clear and not too deep.
As soon as the container has sunk deeper, a side-scan sonar or magnetometer
can be clipped on to a boat or a transducer could localize a transponder fixed to
the container.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

32 / 44

Table 2: Overview of the localisation methods. The effectiveness of the each technique is described in four columns: (1) reliability in terms of a star-rating (in which more stars
represent a more reliable method), (2) the coverage describes the scope of the method, (3) the signal frequency, and (4) the limitations provide a list of disadvantages to
the method. The last three columns describe the feasibility of the technique, in terms of: (1) scalability defining the domain of the method, (2) costs in terms of a starrating (in which more stars represent a cheaper method) and (3) logistics value to describe the added benefit to the end-to-end logistics.
Effectiveness

Technology

Reliability

Feasibility (Commercial)

Coverage

Automation

Limitations

Scalability

Costs

Logistics value

- Only for intact containers above water

Global



- End-to-end container

level
Containers with GPS



device

All smart containers

Periodic

above water level

- No guarantee of signal delivery

tracking

- Interference from other devices
- Fair-use policy
Containers with



LPWAN device

All smart containers

Periodic

- Only for intact containers above water

above water level and in

- No guarantee of signal delivery

vicinity of gateway node

- Interference from other devices

Global



- End-to-end container
tracking

- Fair-use policy
Smart container with

()

All smart containers

floating radio antenna
Radar



Floating containers

Automatic

- Proven technology, but not this application

Activation

- Wire length

Continuous

- No signal reception guarantee

Global



Search area



N.A.

Search area



N.A.

Search area

()

N.A.

Search area

()

N.A.

- End-to-end container
tracking

- Manual observations
- Wave height dependent
Laser

Camera





Floating containers and

Continuous

- No signal reception guarantee

top layer under water

- Manual observations

surface

- Clarity sea water

Floating containers

Continuous

- Quality is weather dependent
- Manual observations
- Needs light source

Lidar



Floating containers

Continuous

- Heavy weather can obstruct
- Manual observations

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

Infrared camera



Floating containers

Continuous

Active sonar with

****

Containers equipped

Continuous

33 / 44

- Quality is weather dependent

Search area

()

N.A.

Search area



N.A.

Search area



N.A.

Search area



N.A.

Search area



N.A.

- Manual observations
transponder/pinger

with transponder

- Also deep water detection, depending on the
frequency of the transponder
- Very expensive
- Unreliable if container falls with transponder on the
sea bottom
- Multiple transponders cause interference of sound

Sonar: hull-mounted



Every container in water

Continuous

in front of hull

- Only effective within beam area range
- Manual observations
- Embedded vessel installation
- Not effective for containers hidden under sand layer

Sonar: side-scan



Every container (and -

Continuous

- Manual observations

part) under water on

- Scanning only part of water column

specified depth level

- Not effective for containers hidden under sand layer

aside the sonar boat
Magnetometers



Every container under
water

Continuous

- Manual observations

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

5

34 / 44

Inventory of container content identification methods
Basically, there are two methods that help to identify the container contents.
The first follows the data and document trail and should represent what is inside
a container. The second composes of intrusive and non-intrusive technologies to
determine its contents. We will start with the first.

5.1

Data trail in maritime container transport chains
This section provides an overview of the various data sets and their availability,
where these data sets specify the contents of containers. The context of this section
are containers that are found at sea, either drifting or at the bottom of the sea.
There are different steps to be taken to retrieve data of container content, namely
(1) to identify a vessel and thus shipping line and (2) retrieve data of container
content. Both steps will be described.

5.1.1

Vessel and shipping line identification
It is assumed that a container number is known. There are basically two use cases
for a container either found drifting or at the bottom of the sea, namely:
1.

2.

5.1.2

Vessel known – the vessel and thus the shipping line that carried a container is
known. Several container tracking solutions are on the market to track
containers during ocean carriage, such as INTTRA or Track-trace. However,
these systems do not cover all container carriers. Vessel and shipping line
data can be identified for requesting data.
Vessel unknown – in this case a container is found drifting somewhere in the
sea or at the bottom of the sea. There are two ways to detect a potential vessel
and thus shipping line that had carried such a container, based on drifting
patterns at sea:
a. A lane can be identified and a probable time window in which a drifting
container would be at the location of that lane. All vessels can be
identified passing that lane in the time window, based on available data of
coast guards. The shipping lines of these vessels are requested to
provide whether they carried the drifting container.
b. Another option is to draft a geofence, including time windows, where a
drifting container could have been and compare this map with AIS or LRIT
data of vessels. Potential vessels can be identified, and thus shipping
lines.

Container data identification
To identify container data, the different stakeholders involved in maritime container
transport will be analysed on their capability to provide certain data. It involves
shipping lines, forwarders, and shippers/consignees. This thorough analysis of
logistics roles, procedure and data exchange is needed to understand the
limitations and challengens in achieving supply chain visibility. An overall view of
data availability is given by the figure, that can be used as a reading guide. This text
describes all potential cases where relevant data can be stored; it does not provide
a flow chart of steps to be taken to retrieve the data.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

Figure 7: Overview of data availability.

35 / 44

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

5.1.3

36 / 44

Terminology shipment and consignment
Terminology is of importance for data retrieval. There are two terms to identify
cargo that is transported, generally used as follows:
•

•

Consignment – a consignment is all cargo (packages) that is transported as
one set from a place of acceptance to a place of delivery at the same time. It is
the set of goods offered by a shipper at a place of acceptance for transport to a
place of delivery controlled by the consignee. Pallets, boxes, and containers
are examples of packages used for transport.
Shipment – a shipment is all cargo that is offered to a carrier for transport
between two locations at the same time.

Whereas a consignment represents the end-to-end view, a shipment is about a
single transport leg with one carrier. Several consignments can be combined to one
shipment and one consignment can be broken into different shipments. For
instance, a consignment of many containers can result in a shipment per container.
Cargo of a consignment can be stuffed in a container. A container can contain
cargo of one (FCL – Full Container Load) or more (LCL – Less Than Container
Load) consignments. In case of an FCL container, the shipping line may be
responsible for picking up the container at the origin and delivering it to its
destination. This is called ‘carrier haulage’. The other option is transport between
a port of loading and a port of discharge, called ‘merchant haulage’, where a
shipper/consignee or its representative (forwarder) delivers a container to a port of
loading or picks up a container at a port of discharge.
5.1.4

The different roles in maritime container transport
To understand possibilities and difficulties in following the data trail of the container
contents, we need to understand the different roles involved in maritime container
transport.

5.1.4.1

Shipping line
Identification of a vessel does not automatically give the identification of the
shipping line responsible for transport of that container. A vessel can operate in a
so-called alliance meaning that a vessel carries containers of different shipping
lines or Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCC). There is always one
responsible shipping line, which has the stowage plan, listing the containers and
their stowage location. Based on a container number, the responsible shipping line
can refer to the shipping line or NVOCC that is responsible for the container.
A shipping line in its turn only has a description of what a container could contain,
which is called ‘Said To Contain’ of STC. A shipping line (or more generally, a
carrier) and a stevedore (or more generally, a hub or terminal operator) are not
allowed to have knowledge of the actual content of a container according legal
restrictions (Rotterdam Rules and the Hague-Visby rules). In case a container
carries dangerous cargo, the shipping line has this data, stored according to
international agreed codes.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

37 / 44

The responsible shipping line shares the following data sets:
•

•

•

Declarations of containers to be loaded to a customs authority in the country
of discharge (or first country of call in the EU) via an Entry Summary
Declaration (ENS) and actual declaration of discharge via a Summary
Declaration for Temporary Storage (TSD). These declarations are based on
STC. The ENS and TSD are derived from the manifest of a vessel. The ENS
and TSD declarations contain a so-called Harmonised Systems (HS) code for
goods classification from a customs perspective. The current ENS procedure
requires a 4-digit HS code, in the Union /Customs Code, the ENS should
include a 6-digit HS code. The value of the HS-code for a container in an ENS
or TSD declaration is based on STC and may thus not classify the actual goods.
The HS system is being effectively used for tariff determination, but has its
limitations in use for identifying controlled goods, such as hazardous wastes,
ozone-depleting chemicals, endangered species, and nuclear materials and
precursors. Revision of the existing HS system is being considered, often
referred to as HS2.0.
Dangerous goods declarations (and declaration of other data sets) to a port
authority at arrival and departure of a vessel in a port area. This is by the
dangerous goods manifest mentioning only those containers that carry
dangerous goods.
Stowage plans and voyage schemes are shared with stevedores. Stevedores
also share these stowage plans amongst each other, especially if these
stevedores are part of the same organization. Stowage plans contain all
relevant data for optimal stowage vessels, like dangerous goods details,
weights, dimensions, oversized values, etc. of each container.

The dangerous goods declaration will be shared with the coastguard, only for
vessels in the area of responsibility of a coastal guard.
A shipping line produces a Bill of Lading (B/L) or waybill to its customer.
A B/L contains data required for formalities and handling of containers (STC and
potential HS-code for ENS/TSD, stowage data, dangerous cargo, etc.), and relevant
data of the chain like shipper, consignee, forwarder, and notify(-ies). In case of an
LCL container, the shipper may not be mentioned; instead the forwarder acts as
shipper of the shipment of a container.
In case of carrier haulage, a shipping line may perform forwarding services on
behalf of its customer. These are described under the role ‘forwarder’.
5.1.4.2

Forwarder
A forwarder may act on behalf of one or more shippers to arrange transport and
formalities like customs declarations. These customs declarations may involve
export and import, or transit at destination. Whenever a forwarder performs customs
declarations - and transport services, the service deliveries of both are strictly
separated (‘separation of concerns’). The department providing the transport
services is not allowed to access declaration data, since this declaration contains
information about the actual cargo to be transported. This is to prevent any
unauthorised operations like theft of valuable cargo.
Export – and import declarations can be performed by different forwarders.
A forwarder at import can differ from the one at export, but could also be part of the
same organization. Furthermore, an export declaration is not necessarily identical to
an import declaration.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

38 / 44

At export, an HS-code of the goods will be given that eases the outgoing of these
goods. At import, an HS-code will be given that gives the lowest import VAT.
Export – and import declarations are fed by purchase orders, invoices, and packing
lists produced by a customer of a forwarder (see further).
Export - and import declarations can only be used to retrieve cargo details in case
they share a container number. Transport data sets relevant to transport services of
a forwarder do not contain the actual cargo details. Whereas the export and import
declaration are at consignment level (or multiple consignments when necessary),
the stuffing list (if available; details of stuffing are not always given) and the data
produced to a shipping line is at container level. In case of LCL containers, the
container numbers are not provided in an export declaration; they will appear to
customs in an ENS produced by a shipping line. In case of an FCL container, the
container number will be part of the export (and import) declaration.
5.1.4.3

Shipper/consignee
A shipper is the organization or entity that produces a consignment for shipment to
a consignee.
There are several reasons to initiate a consignment, for instance:
•

•

•

•

Buy-sell: a consignee acts as buyer of products of a seller, where the seller
takes the role of shipper. A purchase order, invoice, and packing list are shared
between buyer and seller. One purchase or may result in one or more
consignments and several purchase orders can be packed into one
consignment. One invoice may contain details of one or more purchase orders.
In eCommerce, one purchase order will give one invoice and one consignment.
Buy-sell: a consignee acts as buyer of products of a seller, where the seller
takes the role of shipper. A purchase order, invoice, and packing list are shared
between buyer and seller. One purchase or may result in one or more
consignments and several purchase orders can be packed into one
consignment. One invoice may contain details of one or more purchase orders.
In eCommerce, one purchase order will give one invoice and one consignment.
Stock replenishment: a shipper initiates a consignment to be shipped to a
warehouse to have sufficient stock for delivery to customers. A logistics service
provider can perform this function on behalf of the producer (VMI – Vendor
Management Inventory) and thus acts as shipper. There is no purchase order or
invoice involved, since the products don’t change ownership. Furthermore, they
can be stored under customs regime in the warehouse at destination, so there
might not necessarily be an import declaration (the import declaration will be
produced when products are actually sold from the warehouse to a buyer).
Repair and maintenance: triggered by an end-user of a product or a
maintenance service provider, an enterprise ships a part to that customer.
Whether or not a purchase order or invoice are part of data sharing depends on
the organizational relation between a (local) maintenance service provider and
a manufacturer (OEM- Original Equipment Manufacturer).

A purchase order and invoice (or replenishment order) are the basis for export and
import declaration. These orders contain the actual products that are shipped. An
invoice has the actual value of the products, but an invoice is not always available
(e.g. in the case of stock replenishment).

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

39 / 44

A shipper and consignee may also do the export and import declarations.
A package list contains the relation between the actual packages and the goods
as mentioned in a purchase – or replenishment order. In case of repair and
maintenance, the packing list contains all products that are shipped to solve a
particular problem. A package list results in the so-called line items of a
consignment that has to be shipped via a transport service of a forwarder.
5.1.5

Lack of visibility
There are two ways to identify the container number of containers that were fallen
from aboard during the sea voyage. One way is after having localised the fallen
containers, to visually confirm the unique ISO 6346 International Shipping Container
Standard Information reporting mark. Obviously, this can be done for washed up
containers, floating containers and salvaged containers, but not for containers
broken in pieces, or lost sunken containers. Another approach is to use the stowage
plan and confirm which containers are still on board or unloaded. In case of
substantial damage in/to the bays, an accurate validation can only be made
afterwards when the vessel arrived in the port of discharge. Localisation methods,
like the LoRa Gateway approach can help in this identification stage.
When knowing the container number, we can identify the vessel and shipping line
carrying this container during the incident. The methods for this were described in
the previous section.
When knowing the vessel and shipping line, the corresponding manifest and B/L
can provide among others the reported shipper, consignee, the HS-codes of the
reported cargo, and the port of loading and port of discharge. The dangerous goods
manifest can identify if the lost containers were reported containing dangerous
goods and include a 4-digit UN number and an EmS number, referring to the
Emergency Response Procedure to be followed in case of incidents.
If the description of the HS-codes is too general, additional information can be
retrieved by shipment identification. With the shipment identification, the transport
order number can be retrieved and exporter, seller, importer, buyer, purchase order,
packing list, and stuffing list details can be identified. This information includes
product identification details and number of boxes, collies, items.
In theory, this information can be linked, and corresponding data elements can be
retrieved, supported by (real-time) visibility platforms. In practice, such linkages
between vessels, container, shipment, transport order, purchase/production order
are often not stored. Retrieving this information afterwards is a time consuming
process and depends on collaboration of all actors involved in the processes to
follow this data trail.
An alternative track is to follow the declaration data. If the container was exported
from the EU, an export declaration has been submitted and a movement reference
number was allocated. If the port of destination was an EU port, an ENS has been
submitted to the customs authority in first European port of call in the vessel
schedule. As described in the previous section, the HS-codes allocated to import
and export declarations for the same consignment may differ.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

5.2

40 / 44

Smart devices for cargo identification
Low cost passive RFID tags may be an alternative container identification method,
complementary to the ISO 6346 International Shipping Container Standard
Information reporting mark. As described before under the communication
technologies, its application however is limited to readers above water and within
a small distance from the tag. And these tags cannot store much data.
An alternative is to apply tags that can exchange more data than just a few bits, up
to more than 1 megabit. In theory, the stuffing data or B/L data could be written onto
the tags, though the reluctance in the market to make this type of data transparent
is even bigger than exchanging the corresponding data elements governed by data
governance principles.
Combine this with cryptography to encrypt the data is technically possible, though
cost increasing. And the data governance to facilitate decryption can also enable
authorized actors to get access to the linked data from end-to-end visibility
platforms.

5.3

Intrusive and non-intrusive inspection of the container contents
Inspection methods can be applied to containers being salvaged, washed ashore,
or floating on the water level. Most obvious way is to open the container for physical
inspection. If there is suspicion of narcotics smuggle, the target container is being
guarded by both customs and police and either subject to physical inspection of the
container or guarded and monitored in order to catch drugs traffickers in the act.
An alternative intrusive way is to drill a hole in the container and take a sample of
the gas and/or liquid for further analysis.
Non-intrusive inspection methods like high energy x-ray container scanning and
radiation detection are normally applied to support inspection authorities in their
supervision role without or limited disturbing or disrupting the logistics supply
chains. Mobile scanning equipment could be transported to the shore, but this is
rather unlikely. In case of suspicion of dangerous gases or liquids inside a
container, Raman spectroscopy has been used in several research projects as a
means to detect explosives from a safe distance using laser beams.
Use of sniffer police dogs seems to be a more flexible and cheaper method for this
type of incidental use.

5.4

Effectiveness of policies
There is an ongoing debate on policies to support customs risk management in
increasing customs visibility of the container contents and other contextual
information (e.g. ultimate consignor and consignee). The revision of the ENS
procedure including the obligation to submit a 6-digit HS code is an intermediate
result of that debate.
Policies to endorse the visibility of goods descriptions from purchase orders is
currently not in question.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

5.5

41 / 44

Summary
If we want to know the contents of a container that was fallen overboard (drifting,
sunk or washed ashore), we can follow the data trail. Knowing the container
number, we can identify the vessel and shipping line carrying the container during
the incident and request the corresponding carrier to provide cargo details. These
will include the high level 4-digit HS-code descriptions based on ‘said to contain’, or
in case of dangerous goods the 4 digit UN dangerous goods code description.
When following the customs declarations corresponding to the consignments in the
container, we find similar 4-digit HS codes. Full visibility solutions would bring us to
the detailed goods descriptions on purchase orders and invoices. But as we see,
this end-to-end visibility is often lacking.
Encrypted tags attached to the container could technically contain cargo details, but
it would have huge impact on the way global supply chains are being organised.
This sensitive commercial data should be (over)written on the tags during container
stuffing and stripping. A secure interface with container visibility platforms could
offer similar functionality against lower costs.
Non-intrusive inspection is not a standard procedure for stranded containers, and
physical inspection is only be done ashore if there is a serious suspicion of
narcotics smuggle. Its relevance for incidents with fallen containers is limited.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

42 / 44

Table 3: Overview of the identification methods. The effectiveness of the each technique is described in four columns: (1) reliability in terms of a star-rating (1-5 stars, in which
more stars represent a more reliable method), (2) the coverage describes the scope of the method, (3) the rationale, and (4) the limitations provide a list of disadvantages
to the method. The last three columns describe the feasibility of the technique, in terms of: (1) scalability defining the domain of the method, (2) costs in terms of a starrating (1-5 stars, in which more stars represent a cheaper method) and (3) logistics value to describe the added benefit to the end-to-end logistics.
Effectiveness
Technology

Reliability

Carrier data



Coverage /

Feasibility (Commercial)
Rationale

Limitations

Scalability

Costs

Logistics value

Risk assessment

- Quality and level of detail B/L goods

All container carriers



N.A.



N.A.



- Visibility benefits for downstream

Applicability
visibility

All B/Ls
All carriers

description (STC, HS 4 digit) and
dangerous goods manifest (UN 4 digit)

Customs data



visibility

Incoming containers

- Visibility limitations (declared HS

European

(ENS HS codes),

Risk assessment

codes)

(ENS-exchange)

export containers

- Data privacy regulation

(HS code from
expert declaration
End-to-end supply



chain visibility

Only if link with PO

Risk assessment

and/or PL is

- Lack of end-to-end visibility

Global

- Supply chain collaboration

actors

captured in visibility
system
Encrypted tags



with cargo details

Dangerous goods

Instant results with

- Requires legislation and enforcement

containers or all

reader

- Resistance from trade

All shores, after

In case of smuggle

- Container must be salvaged on land

salvage

suspicion

- Inspection Authority risk management

Floating or stranded

Confirm dangerous

- Only when container is floating or

containers

gases of liquids

salvaged an intact

Stranded containers

In case of smuggle

- Only for salvaged containers

suspicion

- Only for inspection purposes

In case of suspicion

- To detect dangerous explosive gases

of dangerous

or liquids

Global



N.A.

Low



N.A.

Low



N.A.

Low but flexible



N.A.

Low



N.A.

containers
Manual container



inspection
Sample of gas or



liquid
(hole drilling)
Sniffer dogs
Raman
spectroscopy




Stranded containers

explosive gases or
liquids

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

6

43 / 44

A step change in container tracking applications
The problem with deployment of container tracking technology was that it was very
costly, both in terms of the cost of the devices as well as the challenge in returning
to their owners' devices that aren't permanently affixed to containers or other
assets. This has been reconfirmed in research projects like Smart-CM,
CASSANDRA and CORE, see section 1.3.
But now, LPWAN communication technology applied in a mesh network allows for
low cost end-to-end container tracking applications, that offer functionality in the
harsh environment of containers being shipped across the world and allowing for
ultra-low battery use making reverse logistics of the smart devices redundant.
We see substantial investment from ocean carriers in commercial LPWANapplications, even joint ownership of such solution providers by ocean container
carriers. These solutions offer full integration with the reefer units, include already
a number of sensors in the device (monitoring temperature, humidity, shocks and
door opening), integrate GPS for situations where the low energy mesh network is
not offering connectivity, and allow for easy integration of additional sensors. Think
of ethylene sensors monitoring ripening status of perishable goods underway their
destination.
The current investments in smart container tracking – already substantial and
beyond the pilot stage - may be the first step in wider deployment programme by
ocean carriers and boost the introduction of smart tracking applications in container
terminals, empty depots, inland terminals or distribution centres. Such applications
may speed up the deployment pace. Other recent initiatives also aim to accelerate
the digital transformation in containerised shipping and logistics, think of multicarrier collaboration in the launch of the Digital Container Shipping Association
(DCSA) and in recent blockchain initiatives. Such initiatives further support these
smart container tracking deployment programmes.
As such, the whole sector can benefit from this deployment in monitoring and
localising incidents with fallen containers. It may be considered to accelerated the
take up of such smart container tracking devices by developing policies and/or
legislative measures for monitoring stowage integrity and tracking functionality
above water levels for dangerous goods containers.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R11022v3 | 25 September 2019

7

44 / 44

Signature
The Hague, 25 September 2019

Chris Reudink
Projectleader

Gerwin Zomer
Author