CBM and Chargeable Weight in Freight

A shipment’s freight bill almost never tracks what the cargo weighs on a scale. It tracks whichever is larger between that scale weight and the space the cargo occupies, converted into the same unit by a divisor the carrier sets. A pallet of feather pillows and a pallet of steel bar can ride the same truck, fill the same cubic meter, and be charged completely differently, because the pillows are billed on volume and the steel on weight. The number that decides this is the chargeable weight, and it sits on top of two more basic quantities: the cubic meter of cargo (CBM) and the conversion factor for the transport mode. Get the CBM wrong by treating centimeters as meters and the quote is off by a factor of a million. Pick the wrong divisor and an air-freight invoice comes back at three times the figure the shipper budgeted. The CBM calculator and the chargeable weight calculator run this arithmetic, but a forwarder needs the logic behind it to quote, dispute, and plan around it.

This article covers the volume-weight-containerization chain end to end: how to compute CBM, why volume is priced at all, the dimensional-weight divisors for air, sea LCL, and courier, the break between full-container-load and less-than-container-load economics, the internal capacity and payload limits of standard ISO containers, and the SOLAS Verified Gross Mass rule that has governed how a packed box gets weighed since 1 July 2016. It is the hub for the cost side of containerized trade, and it sits under the wider freight forwarding and Incoterms chain, connecting to ocean freight cost and surcharges, Incoterms, and the physical-scale companion container ship size classes.

CBM: the cubic meter of cargo

CBM is cubic meters, the volume a consignment occupies. The whole apparatus of freight pricing for general cargo starts here, because space on a truck, in an aircraft hold, or in a container is the scarce resource a carrier sells. A trailer or a container fills up by volume long before most mixed cargo reaches the weight limit, so the carrier needs a volume figure to know how much of its capacity a shipment consumes.

The computation is a single multiplication. Measure each package’s length, width, and height in meters, multiply the three, and you have the CBM of one package. Multiply by the number of identical packages for the consignment total. For a carton 120 cm long, 80 cm wide, and 100 cm high, convert to meters first: 1.2 by 0.8 by 1.0 gives 0.96 CBM per carton. One hundred such cartons make 96 CBM. Where the cargo is a mix of sizes, compute the CBM of each size group and add them. The formula and its symbol legend, including the revenue-ton comparison covered below, sit on the companion calculator:

The single most common CBM error is a units mistake. A cubic meter is one million cubic centimeters, not a hundred, because the conversion cubes: 100 cm per meter, and 100 cubed is 1,000,000. So a forwarder who divides a centimeter-measured volume by 100 instead of 1,000,000 overstates the CBM by a factor of 10,000. The safe practice is to convert every dimension to meters before multiplying, never after. A second frequent error is measuring the product rather than the package. Freight is charged on the outer carton or the palletized footprint, gaps and overhang included, not on the tight volume of the goods inside, so the dimensions that matter are the ones a pallet-jack and a stow plan see.

Volume matters because density varies enormously across the cargo book. Bagged cement runs well over a tonne per cubic meter; expanded polystyrene packaging runs a few kilograms per cubic meter. If a carrier priced purely on weight, the polystyrene shipper would pay almost nothing while filling an entire trailer, and the carrier would lose money on every light load. Pricing on the greater of weight and volume closes that gap. The dividing line is the cargo’s density against the mode’s stated break-even density, and that break-even is exactly what the dimensional-weight divisor encodes.

Chargeable weight and the dimensional-weight divisors

Chargeable weight is the figure the freight rate is actually multiplied against. The rule is the same across modes even though the numbers differ: the carrier bills the greater of the actual gross weight and the volumetric (dimensional) weight. Volumetric weight is the cargo’s volume converted to a weight using the mode’s divisor. If the actual weight wins, the cargo is dense and the carrier is selling tonnage; if the volumetric weight wins, the cargo is light and bulky and the carrier is selling space.

The divisor is where the three main modes part company, and these are the highest-risk numbers in the whole subject, because a wrong divisor scales the entire invoice.

Air freight: the IATA 6,000 rule

Air cargo uses the IATA volumetric standard of 6,000 cubic centimeters per kilogram. The volumetric weight in kilograms is the cargo’s volume in cubic centimeters divided by 6,000: length by width by height in centimeters, all divided by 6,000. Expressed per cubic meter, since one cubic meter is 1,000,000 cubic centimeters, the conversion is 1,000,000 divided by 6,000, which is 166.67 kilograms, rounded in practice to 167 kg. So in air freight, 1 CBM equals 167 kg of chargeable weight. Any cargo lighter than 167 kg per cubic meter is billed on its volume; anything denser is billed on its scale weight.

That 167 figure is the one to memorize. A consignment of 2 CBM weighing 250 kg has a volumetric weight of 2 times 167, which is 334 kg, and is therefore charged as 334 kg even though it weighs 250 kg on the scale. The same 2 CBM weighing 400 kg is charged as 400 kg, because the actual weight exceeds the volumetric figure. The break-even density is 167 kg per CBM: below it, volume governs; above it, weight governs.

Sea LCL: weight or measurement and the revenue ton

Sea LCL uses a different and older convention: weight or measurement, written W/M, billed in revenue tons. Here 1 CBM equals 1,000 kg, one metric tonne. The carrier compares the cargo’s volume in cubic meters against its weight in metric tons and charges the greater, calling each unit a revenue ton (RT). Because one revenue ton is either one cubic meter or one tonne, the comparison is direct: a shipment of 4 CBM weighing 900 kg is billed as 4 revenue tons (the 4 CBM beats the 0.9 tonnes); the same 4 CBM weighing 5,200 kg is billed as 5.2 revenue tons (the 5.2 tonnes beats the 4 CBM). The break-even density for sea LCL is therefore 1,000 kg per CBM, six times denser than the air break-even.

The reason the sea break-even sits so much higher than air is the relative cost of weight versus space in each mode. An aircraft is acutely weight-limited and space-limited at once, so it penalizes low density hard at 167 kg per CBM. A ship has enormous deadweight capacity relative to its slot count, so volume tends to dominate sea pricing, and the 1,000 kg per CBM break-even reflects that most general LCL cargo bills on its cube. The W/M revenue ton predates containerization and still governs LCL, because LCL is metered the old break-bulk way, by the slot the cargo takes in a shared box.

Courier and express: the 5,000 divisor and road groupage

Courier and express integrators commonly use a 5,000 divisor rather than the IATA 6,000, which makes them more expensive on bulky parcels: 1,000,000 divided by 5,000 is 200 kg per CBM, so the courier break-even density is 200 kg per CBM. A 0.5 CBM parcel weighing 80 kg is billed at 0.5 times 200, which is 100 kg, under a 5,000-divisor courier tariff, versus 0.5 times 167, which is about 83 kg, under an IATA 6,000 air tariff. Road groupage in Europe often runs a lighter conversion still, the standard industry divisor of 3,000 cubic centimeters per kilogram that most European groupage tariffs publish, equal to roughly 333 kg per CBM, because a truck is even more space-constrained relative to its payload than an aircraft. The 3,000 figure is a market-typical tariff convention, not a regulated constant, so it varies by carrier and must be read off the rate sheet. Always confirm the divisor in the specific tariff; integrators publish theirs, and a forwarder who assumes 6,000 against a 5,000 carrier will under-quote every light parcel.

The pattern across all of this is one rule with mode-specific constants. The carrier converts volume to a weight using a divisor, compares against the scale weight, and bills the greater. The chargeable weight calculator lets a forwarder switch the divisor by mode and watch the billed figure flip from weight-governed to volume-governed as the inputs change.

The divisor reference table

The four constants below are the ones a forwarder applies daily. Each divisor is a volume-to-weight conversion, and each implies a break-even density: the cargo density at which the volumetric weight exactly equals the scale weight. Below the break-even, volume governs the bill; above it, weight governs.

Read the table by the break-even column. A consignment of cement at 1,500 kg per CBM bills on weight in every mode, because it sits above all four break-evens. A consignment of foam packaging at 30 kg per CBM bills on volume in every mode. The interesting cargo is in between: a load at 250 kg per CBM bills on weight by air (above the 167 air break-even, so scale weight wins), on weight by courier (above the 200 break-even, so scale weight wins there too), and on volume by sea LCL (far below the 1,000 sea break-even). The same physical cargo flips which side governs as the divisor changes, which is why the mode choice and the rate quote cannot be separated.

Worked contrast: dense versus light at the same cube

Take two consignments of identical volume, 10 CBM each, and watch the billing diverge. Consignment A is auto parts at 9,000 kg, a density of 900 kg per CBM. Consignment B is furniture at 1,800 kg, a density of 180 kg per CBM. By sea LCL the comparison for A is 10 CBM against 9 tonnes, so A bills 10 revenue tons on volume; for B it is 10 CBM against 1.8 tonnes, so B bills 10 revenue tons on volume too. Both sit below the 1,000 kg per CBM break-even, so both pay for 10 revenue tons despite the five-fold weight difference. That is the defining feature of W/M for sea: most general cargo, even moderately dense cargo, pays on its cube, because the 1,000 kg per CBM threshold is high. Only a cargo above one tonne per CBM, such as the auto parts pushed to 11,000 kg in the same 10 CBM, flips to the weight side and bills 11 revenue tons.

By air the same two consignments split. A at 900 kg per CBM exceeds the 167 air break-even by a wide margin, so A bills on its 9,000 kg scale weight. B at 180 kg per CBM is just above the 167 break-even, so B bills on its scale weight too, at 1,800 kg, only barely. Drop B’s density to 150 kg per CBM (1,500 kg in 10 CBM) and it falls below the air break-even, so it would bill on its volumetric weight of 10 times 167, which is 1,670 kg, more than its 1,500 kg actual weight. The lesson a forwarder takes from this: for air, the cargo’s density relative to 167 is the whole question, and a small density change near that line moves the bill from one basis to the other.

FCL versus LCL: the container break-even

The choice between full-container-load and less-than-container-load is the central cost decision in ocean trade for anything short of a full box. FCL means the shipper books an entire container, pays a flat rate for it, and fills it however full they like; the carrier moves the sealed box and does not care whether it holds 5 CBM or 33. LCL means the cargo travels as part of a consolidation, sharing one container with other shippers’ goods, and is billed per revenue ton on the W/M basis above. A consolidator (a forwarder running a groupage service) packs the shared box at an origin container freight station, then unpacks it at destination, recovering the cost across all the shippers in the box.

LCL wins for small consignments because the shipper pays only for the cube they use. FCL wins once the consignment is large enough that a flat box rate beats the per-CBM LCL charge multiplied across many revenue tons. The crossover, the break-even, depends on the LCL rate per revenue ton and the FCL rate per box on the specific lane, but a common rule of thumb puts it somewhere around 13 to 15 CBM: below that, LCL is usually cheaper; above it, a 20ft FCL is usually cheaper, even half-empty, because the marginal LCL charge keeps climbing while the FCL box rate is fixed. The FCL vs LCL calculator finds the exact crossover for a given pair of rates, so a forwarder can quote the cheaper option instead of defaulting to one.

LCL carries costs beyond the headline per-RT rate that shift the break-even down toward FCL. Consolidation and deconsolidation handling at both container freight stations, the extra documentation, the longer transit while the consolidator waits to fill a box, and the higher cargo-damage exposure from multiple handlings all weigh against LCL. A shipper running regular volume often finds that even at 8 to 10 CBM, FCL is worth the empty space for the cleaner handling and the faster, more predictable transit. The decision is rarely the box rate alone.

There is a density angle here too. LCL billed on W/M revenue tons penalizes light cargo just as air does, at the 1,000 kg per CBM break-even. A shipper with dense cargo, machine parts or tiles, may find the LCL weight side drives the revenue-ton count up fast and pushes FCL forward, because a dense 10-tonne consignment in 8 CBM bills as 10 revenue tons under W/M, not 8. The interaction of cube and weight runs through the whole FCL-versus-LCL question, not just the volume.

Container capacity and payload limits

A standard dry container has two ceilings, a volume ceiling and a weight ceiling, and a load hits whichever comes first. The volume figures are set by the internal dimensions standardized in ISO 668, the international standard that classifies Series 1 freight containers by size, dimensions, and ratings.

A standard 20ft container has an internal volume of about 33 CBM (roughly 33.2 cubic meters). A standard 40ft container holds about 67 CBM (roughly 67.7), almost exactly double the 20ft because it is twice the length at the same width and height. A 40ft high-cube, which adds about a foot of internal height (2.69 m internal versus 2.39 m on a standard box), holds about 76 CBM (roughly 76.4). These are the nominal internal volumes; usable volume is always lower once pallet footprints, stowage gaps, and the door-aperture restriction are accounted for. A 20ft box that nominally holds 33 CBM typically takes 10 standard Euro pallets or 11 standard pallets in a single tier, and the practical stuffed volume often lands near 25 to 28 CBM. A 40ft commonly stuffs out around 55 to 60 CBM in practice.

The weight ceiling is the maximum gross mass set by the container’s rating, less the container’s own tare. A standard 20ft container has a tare of roughly 2,300 kg, a 40ft about 3,750 kg, and a 40ft high-cube about 3,900 kg. The maximum gross mass for a Series 1 container under the long-standing convention was 30,480 kg (the rating in force after the 2005 amendment to ISO 668), which left a 20ft payload near 28,000 kg and a 40ft payload near 26,700 kg. ISO 668:2020, carrying forward a 2016 amendment, raised the maximum gross mass rating to 36,000 kg for most sizes. The operational limit a shipper actually gets is usually capped lower than the container’s structural rating by road-haulage axle-weight law in the origin and destination countries, so the practical 20ft payload most shippers can move by road sits well below the box’s structural maximum.

This is why a 20ft container is often loaded heavier per cubic meter than a 40ft. The 20ft and 40ft carry similar maximum gross masses but the 20ft holds half the volume, so a dense cargo such as tiles, stone, or steel that would exceed the weight limit in a 40ft fits within it in a 20ft at half the cube. Heavy dense cargo ships in 20ft boxes; light bulky cargo ships in 40ft and high-cube boxes. The container ship size classes article covers the vessels that carry these boxes by the thousand and the slot economics one tier up from the single container.

Standard dry container reference data

The figures below are the nominal values a forwarder plans around. The internal volumes come from the ISO 668 internal dimensions; the tare and payload figures are typical for general-purpose steel boxes and vary a little by manufacturer and build year.

The payload column is the gap between the maximum gross mass rating and the tare. Under the 30,480 kg rating, a 20ft with a 2,300 kg tare carries about 28,000 kg of cargo and a 40ft with a 3,750 kg tare about 26,700 kg. Note the 20ft payload is the larger of the two even though the box is half the size, because the two ratings are similar while the 40ft starts from a heavier tare. That is the structural reason dense cargo defaults to 20ft boxes: more weight allowance, less wasted space.

A point that trips up first-time shippers is that nominal volume and usable volume are different numbers. The door aperture is narrower and shorter than the internal section, so a load that would fit the internal cube cannot always pass the doorway. Pallets do not tessellate perfectly with the floor: ten 1.2 by 0.8 m Euro pallets or eleven 1.2 by 1.0 m standard pallets fill a 20ft floor, and the gaps between and above them are dead space that the nominal 33 CBM counts but a real stow cannot use. Plan to a practical figure, not the nominal one, or a 40ft booked on the 67 CBM number comes up short on the dock.

Stowage factor: the cargo side of the same idea

Bulk and break-bulk trades express the volume-weight relationship through the stowage factor, the space one tonne of a cargo occupies, quoted in cubic meters per tonne (or the older cubic feet per ton). It is the inverse of density. Iron ore has a stowage factor near 0.4 m3 per tonne, so it is a weight cargo that fills a hold’s deadweight long before its volume. Bagged grain runs near 1.4 to 1.6 m3 per tonne, a volume cargo that cubes out a hold before reaching the deadweight. The break-even stowage factor for the W/M revenue ton is exactly 1.0 m3 per tonne, the same 1,000 kg per CBM line in another unit: a cargo with a stowage factor above 1.0 bills on its measurement, below 1.0 on its weight. The stowage factor is how a ship’s officer and a chartering desk think about the same trade-off that the dimensional-weight divisor encodes for parcel and container freight.

Verified Gross Mass: the SOLAS weighing rule

Since 1 July 2016, a packed container cannot legally be loaded aboard a ship unless its Verified Gross Mass has been determined and declared by the shipper. The requirement is in SOLAS Chapter VI, Regulation 2, amended by a resolution adopted at the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in 2014 and entered into force on that date. VGM is the total weight of the packed container: the cargo, the dunnage and securing material, and the container’s own tare mass, verified by an approved method and stated on the shipping document.

The rule exists because misdeclared container weights cause real casualties. Overweight and misdeclared boxes shift a ship’s stability calculation, overstress lashings and the cells they stack in, and can collapse a stow at sea or topple a stack on a quay. The IMO made weight verification a precondition of loading to take the guesswork out of the figure the planner uses to compute stability and to assign stack positions. A box without a declared VGM stays on the quay; the master and the terminal are not permitted to load it.

Method 1: weigh the packed container

Method 1 is to weigh the entire packed and sealed container on calibrated, certified weighing equipment after it has been stuffed. A weighbridge takes the whole box, cargo and container together, in one reading, which is the VGM directly. This method suits any cargo, and it is the only practical route for bulk or loose cargo where the individual item weights are not separately known. The equipment used must meet the accuracy standards of the country where the weighing is done.

Method 2: weigh the contents and add the tare

Method 2 is to weigh all the individual items going into the container, the cargo, the pallets, the dunnage, and all the packing and securing material, sum those weights, and add the container’s tare mass (which is stamped on the container’s CSC plate and door). The sum is the VGM. This method suits cargo where each item’s weight is already documented from production or packing, palletized consumer goods with known unit weights for example, and it avoids a trip to a weighbridge. The shipper’s process for Method 2 has to be certified by the relevant national authority, because the regulation does not allow a shipper to simply estimate or guess the contents.

The one weight that is never acceptable for either method is an estimate. The shipper carries the legal responsibility for the VGM, must sign the declaration, and must transmit it to the carrier and the terminal far enough in advance to make the ship’s stowage plan. The container VGM threshold calculator works the Method 2 sum, adding the tare to the declared contents and flagging the figure against the container’s rating and the road-weight limit. The World Shipping Council, the liner industry’s body, documents the VGM obligation as part of how a container ships, and the IMO publishes the underlying SOLAS amendment text.

The named shipper on the bill of lading is the responsible party, even when a forwarder or a packer does the physical weighing. The regulation puts the obligation on the shipper because the shipper is the only party that knows what went into the box, and it bars the carrier and the terminal from loading a container that has no verified figure attached. In practice a container that arrives at the terminal without a transmitted VGM is held, not loaded, and the cost of the delay and any re-weighing falls on the shipper. The point of the rule is the planner’s number: a stability and lashing calculation built on a declared 18-tonne box that is really 26 tonnes is wrong in the direction that loses ships, and the 2014 amendment exists to remove that error class from the load.

Method 2 cannot be used by simply reading a weight off a packing list and trusting it. The national maritime administration of the country where the container is packed has to approve the shipper’s weighing-and-summing procedure, which is why a shipper running Method 2 at scale registers the process with the relevant authority rather than deciding case by case. Method 1 needs no process approval beyond the weighing equipment meeting the country’s accuracy class, because a single weighbridge reading of the sealed box is self-contained. A shipper choosing between the two weighs the cost of a weighbridge visit against the cost of certifying and maintaining a Method 2 process, and high-volume packers of known-weight goods usually find Method 2 cheaper per box once the process is approved.

Common errors in volume and weight quoting

The mistakes in this subject cluster around a few specific points, and each one has a clear fix. They are worth naming because each can move a quote by a large factor or hold a container on a dock.

The units error in CBM is the first. Multiplying centimeters and dividing by the wrong power of ten misstates the volume by orders of magnitude. The fix is mechanical: convert every dimension to meters before multiplying, and a single CBM should always read as a believable number for the package (a one-meter cube is 1 CBM, a shoebox is a few thousandths of a CBM). Any CBM figure that looks absurd is a units error, not a real cargo.

The wrong-divisor error is the second. Assuming the IATA 6,000 against a courier that uses 5,000, or vice versa, under-quotes or over-quotes every light parcel that bills on volume. The fix is to read the divisor off the specific carrier’s tariff, because the divisor is a contract term, not a constant of nature.

The third is confusing volumetric weight with actual weight in the comparison. Chargeable weight is always the greater of the two, never the volumetric figure alone and never the scale figure alone. A forwarder who quotes the volumetric weight on a dense cargo under-bills the carrier and eats the difference, and one who quotes the scale weight on a light cargo loses the business to a competitor who quoted correctly. Compute both, take the greater.

The fourth is planning a container load to its nominal internal volume rather than its practical stuffed volume. Booking a 40ft for exactly 67 CBM of cargo leaves no room for the dead space pallets and stowage gaps create, and the load comes up short or rolls to the next sailing. Plan to the practical figure, near 55 to 60 CBM for a 40ft, with a margin.

The fifth is missing or estimating the VGM. A container without a transmitted, verified gross mass does not load, and a guessed figure is not a verified one under either SOLAS method. The fix is to run Method 1 or an approved Method 2 and transmit the result inside the carrier’s cut-off, every box, every time.

Putting volume, weight, and the box together

The three quantities chain into one workflow. Compute the CBM of the consignment from the carton or pallet dimensions in meters. Convert that volume to chargeable weight using the mode’s divisor, 6,000 for air (167 kg per CBM), W/M revenue tons for sea LCL (1,000 kg per CBM), 5,000 for most couriers (200 kg per CBM), and bill the greater of that and the scale weight. If the consignment is large enough, test it against a full-container-load box rate at the FCL-versus-LCL break-even, and once it goes FCL, fit it to a container by the tighter of the volume ceiling (about 33 CBM in a 20ft, 67 in a 40ft, 76 in a 40HC) and the payload ceiling. Then, for any sea move in a container, verify the gross mass under SOLAS before the box can load.

A worked case ties it together. A shipper has 60 cartons, each 0.6 by 0.4 by 0.4 m, so 0.096 CBM each, 5.76 CBM total, weighing 1,400 kg. By air, the volumetric weight is 5.76 times 167, which is 962 kg, under the 1,400 kg actual weight, so air bills 1,400 kg (the cargo is dense enough that weight governs). By sea LCL, the W/M comparison is 5.76 CBM against 1.4 tonnes, so the move bills 5.76 revenue tons (volume governs at sea). The consignment is far too small for FCL at under 6 CBM, so LCL is correct. If the same shipper scaled to 600 cartons, 57.6 CBM and 14,000 kg, the LCL revenue tons (about 58) would long since have crossed the FCL break-even, and the cargo would go in a 40ft box (57.6 CBM fits under the 67 CBM ceiling, and 14 tonnes is well under payload), with a VGM near 14 plus the container tare of about 3.75 tonnes, so roughly 17.75 tonnes, declared before loading. The same 57.6 CBM at 28 tonnes would still fit the 40ft on volume but would need checking against the weight limit and the destination road-axle law.

This is the practical core of freight forwarding’s cost side: a few constants applied in a fixed order. The constants are the part to get exactly right, because each one scales the answer. The air 167, the sea 1,000, the courier 200, the container 33, 67, and 76 CBM, and the 1 July 2016 VGM date are the numbers a forwarder works from every day. The chargeable-weight figure this produces is the freight line that then feeds the landed cost and import duty build-up at destination, and the cargo’s declared value (the basis for the freight and for the policy) connects to the cargo insured value on the same consignment.

Limitations

The divisors and capacities here are the industry-standard reference values, not contract terms. A carrier or forwarder can and does set its own dimensional-weight divisor in the rate agreement; the IATA 6,000 is the standard but a specific airline or consolidator may apply a different figure, and the only authoritative divisor for a given shipment is the one in that carrier’s published tariff or the negotiated rate sheet. Always read the divisor off the actual contract, not off a general reference.

The container internal volumes (about 33, 67, and 76 CBM) are nominal figures from the ISO 668 internal dimensions. Real stuffed volume is lower, often by 15 to 25 percent, once pallet footprints, the door aperture, stowage gaps, and dunnage are accounted for. Treat the nominal CBM as a ceiling for planning, not as a load you will achieve. The maximum gross mass on the container’s rating plate is a structural rating; the operational payload is usually limited below it by national road-haulage axle-weight law at origin and destination, which varies by country and routing.

The FCL-versus-LCL break-even quoted here (roughly 13 to 15 CBM) is a rule of thumb, not a fixed threshold. The real crossover depends entirely on the LCL per-revenue-ton rate and the FCL box rate on the specific lane and at the specific time, both of which move with the market. On a lane with cheap FCL and expensive LCL the crossover can fall below 10 CBM; the reverse pushes it higher. Compute it from current rates rather than assuming the rule of thumb.

This article covers the standard dry container and general containerized cargo. It does not model reefer, open-top, flat-rack, or tank-container specifics, dangerous-goods stowage and segregation, out-of-gauge cargo, or break-bulk and bulk freight, which are priced and stowed on different bases. The VGM treatment covers the two SOLAS methods at a working level; the exact equipment-accuracy tolerances and the national-authority certification procedures for Method 2 are set by each flag and port state and must be checked against the local maritime administration’s guidance for a specific shipment.

See also

• Freight forwarding and Incoterms: the cluster hub one level up, covering the forwarding chain, the house and master bill of lading, and the trade-term framework this CBM and chargeable-weight cost side sits inside.
• Ocean freight cost and surcharges: how the base sea-freight rate plus the BAF, THC, and other surcharges build the full invoice that the CBM and revenue-ton basis here feeds into.
• Landed cost and import duty: how the freight figure computed from chargeable weight and the revenue-ton basis enters the total landed cost alongside duty, import VAT, and clearance fees at destination.
• Cargo insured value: the CIF-plus-10% insured value on the same consignment, the figure the policy pays on a total loss of the goods this article prices the freight on.
• Incoterms explained: the ICC trade terms that decide which party pays the freight, the terminal handling, and the VGM-related costs at each end.
• Container ship size classes: the vessels that carry these containers, from feeder to ULCV, and the slot economics one level up from the single box.
• CBM calculator: consignment volume from package dimensions, with the revenue-ton comparison.
• Chargeable weight calculator: the greater of actual and volumetric weight, switchable by mode divisor.
• FCL vs LCL calculator: the cost crossover between a full box and a per-revenue-ton consolidation.
• Container VGM threshold calculator: Method 2 verified gross mass, contents plus tare, against the rating and road limit.