Keeping incompatible dangerous goods apart in every container — a use case
Chemicals & dangerous goods
A use-case guide for Chemicals & dangerous goods teams to apply to their own operation — not a specific customer story. The workflow and ContainerMath features shown are real; the figures illustrate what this use case typically targets rather than results measured from one account.
A use-case guide for chemical and dangerous-goods distributors: incompatible classes can't share a container, and checking a segregation table by hand on every revision is where mistakes creep in. This walks through building segregation into the load plan itself — assigning cargo to groups that must stay apart so the packing engine keeps them in separate containers automatically.
The challenge
A distributor shipping mixed chemical freight lives with a segregation table, a spreadsheet and a lot of care. The rules are unforgiving — some classes can share a container with separation, some can't share one at all — and every quantity change or new line item means re-running the check by hand. Under time pressure the manual step gets skipped, the segregation lives in a different document from the stuffing plan, and nothing enforces that the plan honors the check. One missed pair is a rejected booking or worse. This guide shows how to make the separation part of the plan instead of a review after it.
Before vs. after
- 1Check the table by handEvery mixed load was cross-checked against a printed segregation table manually — accurate when done carefully, skipped when rushed.
- 2Re-run it on every changeA new SKU or a changed quantity invalidated the check, so the whole table had to be worked again — the step most likely to be dropped.
- 3Keep the plan and the check apartSegregation lived in one document and the stuffing plan in another, with nothing guaranteeing the plan actually honored the check.
- 4Catch a missed pair lateAn overlooked class pairing surfaced at booking or the terminal, not during planning — the most expensive place to find it.
- 5Review hazards separately from weightSegregation, payload and axle checks were done in different places, so no single view confirmed the load was compliant end to end.
- 1Tag cargo into keep-apart groupsIncompatible cargo is assigned to segregation groups once, describing which goods must never share a container.
- 2Let the engine keep them apartThe packing engine keeps those groups in separate containers automatically as it builds the plan — no manual placement.
- 3Re-enforce on every recalculationChange a quantity or add a SKU and the segregation is applied again on the next run, so it can't quietly fall out of date.
- 4See a stow that already compliesThe 3D plan reflects a load that respects the rule from the start, rather than one flagged for rework in a later review.
- 5Review everything in one placeSegregation advisories sit alongside the weight, payload and per-axle checks, so the whole load is confirmed in a single view.
Inside ContainerMath: the parts they used
The results
- Incompatible cargo is kept in separate containers automatically instead of checked against a table by hand.
- Segregation is re-applied on every recalculation, so a change can't leave it out of date.
- The stow reflects the rule from the start rather than being flagged for rework in a later review.
- Segregation, weight and axle checks are reviewed together in one plan.
Stop guessing in spreadsheets. Build a 3D load plan with live CBM and payload.
Try ContainerMath free →- Load planning inside your own ERP and TMS — a use case for the API and shared teamsDistribution & logistics technology
- From container plan to filing-ready export documents without retyping the shipmentExport documentation & trade compliance
- From 4 days in Excel to minutes: how a national manufacturer automated container planningManufacturing
ContainerMathThe industry standard for 3D container cargo packing and loading plans. Optimize layouts, maximize volume, and reduce shipping overhead.
Built by Backrock Studios