Development and Applications of Physical Internet in TEL - Ontwikkeling en toepassingen van Physical Internet in TEL

(1)

Delft University of Technology

FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING

Department Maritime and Transport Technology Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl

This report consists of 72 pages and 0 appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning the contents of the advice.

Specialization: Transport Engineering and Logistics

Report number: 2017.TEL.8177

Title:

Development and Applications of

Physical Internet in TEL

Author:

L. Haanstra

Title (in Dutch) Ontwikkeling en toepassingen van Physical Internet in TEL

Assignment: literature Confidential: no

Supervisor: Dr. Ir. Y. Pang

(2)

(3)

T

U

Delft

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING

Department of Marine and Transport Technology

Delft University of Technology

Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl Student: L. Haanstra Supervisor: Y.Pang Specialization: TEL Creditpoints (EC): 10

Assignment type: Literature Report number: 2017.TEL.8177 Confidential: No

Subiect: Development and Applications of Physical Internet in TEL

Physical Internet is a new and innovative concept which aims to develop a sustainable and efficient open global logistics network. It gains increasing attention from academia and industry. Through the metaphor of the Digital Internet it shapes a new way of how we transport physical goods.

This literature assignment is to get insight in the new paradigm of the Physical Internet. The survey aims to explore the state-of-the-art development and the application of the Physical Internet in the Transport Engineering and Logistics (TEL) sector. The main goal of this assignment is the following:

• To study the general concepts of the Physical Internet

• To review the characteristics of TEL where the Physical Internet could be applied o To investigate the applications and development of the Physical Internet in TEL • To indicate opportunities and challenges for future development

This report should be arranged in such a way that all data is structurally presented in graphs, tables, and lists with belonging descriptions and explanations in text.

The report should comply with the guidelines of the section. Details can be found on the website. The mentor.

(4)

(5)

i

Summary

The Physical Internet is new and innovative concept which aims to develop a sustainable and efficient open global logistics network. Through the metaphor of the Digital Internet it shapes a new way of how we transport physical goods. This report addresses the development and the application of the Physical Internet in the Transport Engineering and Logistics sector.

Using the same concept as the digital internet which does not deal with information, but with packets embedded with information. The Physical Internet does not deal with physical goods directly. It will only deal with specially designed containers that encapsulate physical goods. These containers are called pi-containers. This will enable universal interconnectivity, where pi-containers can be moved and handled efficiently throughout the Physical Internet network. It will also require new ways of intelligent control through standard interfaces and protocols. As the way we transport goods changes it will also change the way on how companies create value. This will create opportunities for new companies to invent new ways to create value through the Physical Internet. As well as, it forces existing companies to innovate with their current business models.

Trough freight transport and city logistics the applications of the Physical Internet in the Transport Engineering and Logistics field are explored. It resulted in functional designs of new Physical Internet facilities and a rich conceptual framework for designing urban logistics and transportation system that are significantly more efficient and sustainable.

It is clear that the Physical Internet gains increasing attention from both academia and industry. Although, it is still in its early years and there is a long way to go before it can be fully implemented. Combining forces different projects are working worldwide to develop the Physical Internet. Also, the upcoming technologies of the Internet of Things and Blockchain provide the Physical Internet with tools to continue to innovate and evolve into a sustainable and efficient open global logistics network.

(6)

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Challenge towards the truly integrated transport system. (SETRIS, 2017) ... 1

Figure 2 - The truly integrated transport system would help to bundle shipments, hence enabling further efficiency and sustainability of freight transport and logistics (SETRIS, 2017) ... 2

Figure 3 - Internet concept map as a network interconnecting AS (Sarraj et al., 2012) ... 5

Figure 4 - Foundations Framework for the Physical Internet (Montreuil et al., 2012a) ... 9

Figure 5 - Generic characteristics of Physical Internet containers (Montreuil et al., 2014) ...14

Figure 6 - Relationships between the three categories of PI-containers (Krommenacker et al., 2016) 15 Figure 7 - π-lift-truck lifting a composite π-container without pallet and forks (Montreuil et al., 2010) 16 Figure 8 - π-conveyor grid composed of flexible conveying pi-cells (Montreuil et al., 2010) ...17

Figure 9 – Left: Illustrating the functionality of a π-composer. Right: Illustrating stacking and snapping functionalities of a π-store (Montreuil, 2011) ...20

Figure 10 – Left: Overlapping yet disconnected logistics networks. Right: A topology of interconnected logistics networks (Montreuil et al., 2012b) ...21

Figure 11 - Communications between layered instances in the OLI model (Montreuil et al., 2012b) ...23

Figure 12 - Illustrating OLI model inter-layer service description (Montreuil et al., 2012b)...25

Figure 13 - Illustration of the three levels of intelligence (Meyer et al., 2009) ...26

Figure 14 - Illustrating multi-layered PI-container activeness (Sallez et al., 2016) ...28

Figure 15 - Holonic illustration of the framework (Sallez et al., 2016) ...29

Figure 16 - PI-container behaviour (Sallez et al., 2015)...30

Figure 17 - Virtualization of Container (VoC) framework (Bortfeldt et al., 2012) ...31

Figure 18 - Implications of different types of business model innovation strategies for π-Enablers and π-Enabled firms (Montreuil et al., 2012c) ...33

Figure 19 - Single-tier, single-CDC city logistics (Crainic et al., 2016) ...38

Figure 20 - Two-tier city logistics (Crainic et al., 2016)...39

Figure 21 - Left: Flow of goods in the existing. Right: Flow of goods in a π-enabled mobility web. (Hakimi et al., 2012) ...41

Figure 22 - An Overview of the Flow of Trucks and Trailers in a PI Transit Center (Meller et al., 2013a) ...42

Figure 23 - Legend of Flows in a PI Transit Center (Meller et al., 2013a) ...43

Figure 24 - An Illustration of the Major Flows in a PI Transit Center. (Meller et al., 2013a) ...44

Figure 25 - Proposed Functional Design with Switch Bays and Buffers. (Meller et al., 2013a) ...44

Figure 26 - Final layout of Proposed Design (Overhead View). (Meller et al., 2013a) ...45

Figure 27 - Final layout of Proposed Design (Front View). (Meller et al., 2013a) ...45

Figure 28 - Overview of the flow of trucks, trains and π-containers in the road-rail π-hub (Meller et al., 2013b)...47

Figure 29 - Legend of Flows in a Road-Rail π-Hub. (Meller et al., 2013b) ...48

(9)

v

Figure 31 - Proposed Functional Design of the Road-Rail Π-Hub (Meller et al., 2013b) ...50

Figure 32 - Final layout of Proposed Design (Overhead View). (Meller et al., 2013b)...51

Figure 33 - Final layout of Proposed Design (Rear View). (Meller et al., 2013b) ...51

Figure 34 - Trucks pulling π-trailers containing modular π-containers (Meller et al., 2013c) ...52

Figure 35 - The crossdocking process and its key sub-processes (Meller et al., 2013c) ...54

Figure 36 - Differentiating flows in the designed π-hub (Meller et al., 2013c) ...55

Figure 37 - High-Level Functional Diagram of Designed Crossdocking π-Hub Facility (Meller et al., 2013c) ...56

Figure 38 - Functional Diagram of the Crossdocking π-Hub Site (Meller et al., 2013c) ...57

Figure 39 - Overhead View of the Proposed Road-Based Crossdocking π-Hub Site Layout (Meller et al., 2013c) ...58

Figure 40 - 3D Front View of the Proposed Road-Based Crossdocking π-Hub Site Layout (Meller et al., 2013c) ...58

Figure 41 - Synthesizing the core Hyperconnected City Logistics concepts (Crainic et al., 2016) ...59

Figure 42 - Illustrating Hyperconnected City Logistics instantiated in a concentric city (Crainic et al., 2016) ...61

Figure 43 - Structure of the ETP on Logistics (ALICE, 2016) ...64

Figure 44 - Roadmap ALICE-ETP (ALICE, 2013) ...65

Figure 45 – ALICE (ALICE, 2013) ...65

Figure 46 - IPIC 2018 5th International Physical Internet Conference (IPIC, 2014) ...66

Figure 47 - MODULUSHCA (MODULUSHCA, 2016) ...67

Figure 48 - Modular Container Sizes (reduced choice) (MODULUSHCA, 2016)...68

Figure 49 - m-boxes (MODULUSHCA, 2016) ...68

Figure 50 - ATROPINE Fast Track to the Physical Internet (ATROPINE, 2015) ...69

(10)

vi

List of Tables

Table 1 - Analogy between digital networks and physical networks (Sarraj et al., 2012) ... 4 Table 2 - Elements of architectural analogy between the Digital Internet and the Physical Internet (Sarraj et al., 2012) ... 6 Table 3 - Analogy between Digital Internet routers and Physical Internet π-hubs (Sarraj et al., 2012) 8 Table 4 - Contrasting mobility web scenarios (Hakimi et al., 2012) ...40

(11)

1

1. Introduction

The way physical object are currently transported, handled, stored, realized, supplied and used throughout the world is not sustainable economically, environmentally and socially (Montreuil, 2011). This claim is supported with thirteen vivid symptoms of unsustainability (Montreuil, 2011): 1. We are shipping air and packaging 2. Empty travel is the norm rather than the exception 3. Truckers have become the modern cowboys 4. Products mostly sit idle, stored where unneeded, yet so often unavailable fast where needed 5. Production and storage facilities are poorly used 6. So many products are never sold, never used 7. Products do not reach those who need them the most 8. Products unnecessarily move, crisscrossing the world 9. Fast & reliable multimodal transport is a dream 10. Getting products in and out of cities is a nightmare 11. Logistics networks & supply chains are neither secure nor robust 12. Smart automation & technology are hard to justify 13. Innovation is strangled.

Figure 1 - Challenge towards the truly integrated transport system. (SETRIS, 2017)

In developed countries, freight transportation is already responsible for nearly 15% of greenhouse gas emission such as CO2 and this ratio is increasing while there are significant reduction goals (IEA, 2009). The goal of the European Commission is that greenhouse gas emissions from transport in 2050 will need to be at least 60% lower than in 1990 (COM, 2011). Only, in the face of shifting global trade patterns, international freight transport volumes will grow more than fourfold (factor 4.3) by 2050 and the Average transport distance across all modes will increase 12% (OECD/ITF, 2017). Adding to that for instance in Europe, 25% of trips are empty and noπ-empty trucks use 56% of the weight capacity (EuroStat, 2007) leads to an increasing global unsustainability.

Montreuil (Montreuil, 2011) addresses that the global unsustainability is a worldwide grand challenge and named it the Global Logistics Sustainability grand challenge. The goal of this grand challenge is to enable the global sustainability of physical object mobility (transportation, handling), storage, realization (production, assembly, finishing, refurbishing and recycling), supply and usage. The goal of this grand challenge can be viewed in three perspectives:

(12)

2

- From an economical perspective, the goal is to unlock highly significant gains in global logistics, production, transportation and business productivity.

- From an environmental perspective, the goal is to reduce by an order of magnitude the global energy consumption, direct and indirect pollution, including greenhouse gas emission, associated with logistics, production and transportation.

- From a societal perspective, the goal is to significantly increase the quality of life of the logistic, production and transportation workers, as well as of the overall population by making much more accessible across the world the objects and functionality they need and value.

Physical internet made its first appearance in the domain of logistics on the cover of the British journal The Economist (Markillie, 2006), which edition was filled with a survey of logistics. However Physical Internet made the frontpage it was not further evaluated in any of the articles in the journal. It inspired a team of researchers to investigate whether it is possible to organize the flow of physical goods similar to the data flow in the digital Internet (Montreuil, 2011). The team of researchers started publishing gradually evolving versions of the Physical Internet Manifesto in 2009. With these versions they shaped the visions of the Physical internet and lead them to the definition:

The Physical Internet (PI, π) is an open global logistics system founded on physical, digital and operational interconnectivity through encapsulation, interfaces and protocols. It is a perpetually evolving system driven by technological, infrastructural and business innovation (Montreuil et al., 2012).

Figure 2 - The truly integrated transport system would help to bundle shipments, hence enabling further efficiency and sustainability of freight transport and logistics (SETRIS, 2017)

The report starts with a brief introduction to the Physical Internet. The second chapter covers the concept of the Physical Internet. Chapter three will introduce Transport Engineering and Logistics. Chapter four provides applications of where the Physical Internet could be applied. In chapter five the development of the Physical internet is discussed. Chapter six will give some opportunities & challenges. Finally, chapter seven concludes this report.

(13)

3

2. Physical Internet

To describe the concept of the PI first the analogy between Digital Internet and Physical Internet is evaluated. Second, the Physical Internet foundations are presented. Third, the physical elements of the PI are described. After that the intelligent control that the Physical Internet enables is introduced. Finally, the business innovation required for the PI is proposed.

2.1. Analogy between Digital Internet and Physical internet

According to Sarraj (Sarraj et al., 2012) the analogy between the original Digital Internet and the novel Physical Internet can be expressed through three main characteristics: the interconnection of networks, the structure of the network of networks and the routing of objects across networks.

2.1.1. The interconnection

of

networks

The interconnection ofdigital networks

The interconnection of networks in the Digital Internet is through “specific computers that transfer packets from one network to another” (Comer and Stevens 1982). These specific computers are called “routers”. The routers connecting neighbouring networks enable the transit of data packets between these neighbouring networks. These data packets, called datagrams, have standardised characteristics such as size and structure. By extension, in order to transit between two computers several networks apart, datagrams are sequentially transmitted via the routers interconnecting the different intermediate networks they pass through. The same operating logic is found within each of these networks, based on routers letting the network hosts communicate with each other and with outside networks. The router role is to dispatch datagrams, indicating upon their arrival the next router along their route to their final destination.

The interconnection of logistics networks

Currently, in logistics, there are many company-defined service networks that are based on fixed and/or dedicated logistics plans. For example, the logistic service network between a supplier and the retailers it supplies, or yet the logistics network of an express carrier, are mostly dissociated from other networks and each actor in these networks works independently from the others.

The idea of the Physical Internet (PI, π) is to interconnect all of these logistic service networks through the transposition of the principles of the Internet. Therefore, the aim is for the universal interconnection of logistic networks.

Whereas the Digital Internet networks have the following physical elements: cables, hosts and routers, the Physical Internet faces a more complex reality in terms of physical elements. Physically, a logistic service is carried out according to a transport service based on a network consisting of nodes (including distribution centres, warehouses, plants, etc.), arcs to define the goods transfer means by freight services (road, rail, maritime services, etc.) and final shippers/receivers (companies, organizations or individuals). Applying the Internet analogy, a shipper sends his merchandise to a nearby node that

(14)

4

handles it, stores it and sends it to its destination via one of the numerous accessible logistics plans. For this purpose, like in the case of Internet data, the merchandise is encapsulated in the form of standardised packets, in this case standardized, modular, smart and eco-friendly containers, termed π-containers. Table 1 exposes the strong analogy that may exist between logistics network and a digital network.

A host in the Digital Internet transposes into a place of entry or exit from the Physical Internet networks. It is a place where goods are containerised or de-containerised. It may also consist of a station on an assembly line, an aisle in a retail store or even someone’s home.

The interconnection between two logistics networks may also be made via the creation of new transport services between the nodes of two distinct networks. In fact, a shipper from one network may transmit its containers to a hub in another network. In addition, a node from one network may send π-containers to a node in another network. This leads to two networks interconnected through nodes providing the routing of π-containers from their source to their destination with the possibility of passing through intermediate networks.

2.1.2. The structure of the network of networks

Architecture of the Digital Internet network

Universal interconnectivity enables to connect any node to any other node. This does not mean that there is an arc from each node to each node. On the contrary, faced with the high number of Internet users, the Digital Internet network was designed to limit the number of arcs for reasons of investment and ease of routing. This is examined hereafter. The Digital Internet has a fractal structure. Indeed its network topology is similar at all levels, from local to intercontinental networks. As shown in Figure 3, it consists, on its highest hierarchical level, of a set of large interconnected networks, called “Autonomous Systems” (AS). These were introduced since the Digital Internet is not controlled by a single administrator. Each AS is independently managed by a single operator. In general, an AS corresponds to a large public or private operator. Distinct AS communicate with each other via specific routers called “border routers”, using specialized protocols. Within an AS, data is routed by so-called

(15)

5 “internal routers” and internal communication is carried out with other types of protocols (Stewart III 1998; Huitema 1999; Hardy et al. 2002).

Figure 3 - Internet concept map as a network interconnecting AS (Sarraj et al., 2012)

These relationships between the distinct AS are functional, meaning that these AS may be geographically combined, concurrently operating in the same geographical area. In addition, each autonomous system consists of other networks that are “zones” (or “areas”). In both cases, we speak of sub-networks with or without their own management (protocols). This decomposition may continue at a third level with sub-networks of sub-networks and so on until reaching the local network or a host. There are not a specific number of levels in the Internet network.

This topology both linked and fractal, allows for the resilience of Internet, limits the infrastructures and the size of the data required within routers to transfer datagrams since the number of interconnections between the networks is limited. In fact, it is easier to transfer datagrams when the passage points are known and limited in number than when there is a considerable number of them (Stevens 1994).

Architecture of the Physical Internet network

The Physical Internet is to embed a very large number of nodes. Such nodes include producers and consumers throughout the world. Each producer, for example, may involve multiple nodes, as an industrial assembly line may alone account for hundreds of hosts. It may seem unrealistic and inefficient to have routers maintain a global view of the Physical Internet in its entirety due to the huge database size involved. It is therefore interesting to examine the transposition of the Digital Internet structure to the Physical Internet.

(16)

6

The transposition must take into account the current logistics situation into account, notably the specific roles currently played by companies and administrations. Table 2 provides the key analogy elements on which the transposition is built.

Table 2 - Elements of architectural analogy between the Digital Internet and the Physical Internet (Sarraj et al., 2012)

Zones of sovereignty (e.g. countries) have a limited number of international exchange platforms (international airports, ports and train stations), in particular for the control of the flow through customs. In the Physical Internet, such platforms represent border nodes according to the real meaning of the term. In addition, each country has its own transport means and its own regulations on the transfer of merchandise. This is an additional structuring dimension that is absent from digital networks. However, a country is not an autonomous system since it is not concerned with logistic services that are provided by specific service providers. An autonomous system therefore corresponds to a logistic network managed by a company or organization according to its own rules. It may be an express carrier, an international third-party logistics provider (3PL) or a company that directly manages its own supply network, such as a car manufacturer or a large retailer.

As in the Digital Internet, the networks of current logistic services (physical AS) may not have a specific geographic location. However, the logics of noπ-geographic interconnection for the Digital Internet may not be reproduced for the Physical Internet, else the gain of sharing logistical means may be limited by aberrant paths. In fact, in the case of the Digital Internet, the distance covered on an existing infrastructure is not very important. This is not the case in logistics.

By slicing a Physical Internet network into several zones in the form of physical AS, the requirements on database size and data transfer flow related to the current state of the network can be limited for operations purposes. As in the Digital Internet, it is possible to divide these AS into physical sub-AS,

(17)

7 further reducing the quantity of data required at the node level. Through such a multi-tier structure, the Physical Internet is perceived as the interconnection within and between physical AS.

Using such an architecture, the Physical Internet sustains a fractal interconnection of multiple logistics networks. These networks may be the already existing networks of logistic service providers that are currently providing services only for their clients but that may become open to the clients of other service providers. The networks may be new ones designed and implemented so as to enhance Physical Internet implementation, adoption and growth. Such a fractal interconnection of networks already exists to some degree in air freight through code sharing as well as in the transport of sea containers: the aim is to generalize and extend it across all modes.

2.1.3. The routing of objects across networks

The organisation of routers in the Digital Internet

Technically, in the Digital Internet the routers determine via a routing table the direction that each datagram has to take. In fact, the routing table provides the direction that the datagram has to take depending on its intended destination. The direction depends on a set of pre-established criteria about the best way to reach the destination. The routing table provides the direction by stating the next router that the datagram has to take (Huitema 1999). By way of analogy, it is like a roundabout with direction panels for each destination and a road between two roundabouts representing a connection between two routers. The construction of its routing table is fairly complicated and its size depends on the networks that the correspondent router interconnects (Comer and Stevens 1982). This routing table represents the core organization of each router.

Therefore, the router has the function of reading the address for the destination of each datagram. This address is an integral part of a datagram. In fact, this datagram is a data packet in the form of a set of bits divided into several parts; and each part represents an under-packet of data such as that containing the destination or even the content of the information to transfer (contents of the mail or text, etc.). A data packet can be said to “encapsulate” others. In addition, during the transport phase (for example, between routers), the datagrams are encapsulated in “frames3” that may contain one or several datagrams.

Thereby, when a datagram reaches a router, it is extracted from the frame and is inserted in the waiting line before being processed. In fact, the router reads the heading of the datagrams and specially the part involving the destination. It then places the datagram on the corresponding exit portal and transfers it via another frame to the neighbouring router, and so on until it reaches its destination.

The routing operation in the Physical Internet

The ideas of encapsulating data packets in a datagram, of encapsulating such datagrams in frames for transportation purposes, and of de-capsulations and re-encapsulations being performed during the passages by the routers, may be transposed to logistics. This requires proposing a model encapsulating freight in standardised containers (equivalent to datagrams) interfaced on specific means of transport

(18)

8

(equivalent to frames) (Ballot et al. 2010). The Physical Internet can be conceptualized as consisting of nodes that receive π-containers, and possibly sort and recompose the π-containers to optimise the transport in each segment. The set of π-containers obtained are then to be transferred according to the destination to the next node.

It is then possible to transpose to the Physical Internet the idea of routing table used in the Digital Internet. Such a routing table can be used in each router present at each node (e.g. π-hub), helping to determine the best next node to move a π-container in its way toward reaching its final destination. This best node depends on the preferred set of criteria, for example transport cost, delivery time and/or CO2 emissions. The analogy between the roles of the different physical components of the Digital Internet and the Physical Internet is reinforced, in particular between the routers and the π-hubs as illustrated in Table 3.

In the Digital Internet, the routing of datagrams outside or inside AS does not occur in the same way since the business model chosen is different, which is translated through multiple protocols. This distinction is also important regarding the relationships between the logistic service providers.

Table 3 - Analogy between Digital Internet routers and Physical Internet π-hubs (Sarraj et al., 2012)

The analogy between the routers and the nodes of the Physical Internet obviously has limits since the logistic function of the π-hubs is not summed up by routing. The construction of the Physical Internet should take into account the real needs of logistics such as the management of transport capacities and the sorting in π-hubs that is not raised in the same way as in the Digital Internet where the protocol agrees to “pay in order to see”, that is, to re-send other copied-datagrams if the originals were lost or victims of blocking.

In the Physical Internet, the routing protocols between nodes such as π-hubs may use the best understanding of flow and estimate of their future state to prepare the routing. This is not the case in Digital Internet. In fact, the Physical Internet may benefit from a favourable ratio between its costs means and the one of collecting informations about these same means.

(19)

9

2.2. Physical Internet Foundations

Montreuil, Meller and Ballot (Montreuil et al., 2012a) established the eight foundations of the Physical Internet which are described below. To provide insight in the foundations of the Physical Internet, a framework is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Foundations Framework for the Physical Internet (Montreuil et al., 2012a)

Means for efficiency & sustainability

The first foundation is that the Physical Internet is a means to an end, not an end by itself. Logistics Web enabler

In order to achieve its noble ambition, the Physical Internet aims to enable an efficient and sustainable Logistics Web. In general, a web can be defined as a set of interconnected actors and networks. In the Physical Internet context, the types of actors and networks can be characterized, leading to define a web as a set of interconnected physical, digital, human, organizational and social agents and networks. A Web (with capital W) is here differentiated from any web by the fact that a Web is both open and global. Globalism here infers both a universal worldwide scope and a multiscale microscopic-to-macroscopic scope. Openness is here referring to the accessibility, willingness and availability of actors and networks to deal with any actor or network.

A logistics web is defined as a web aiming to serve logistics needs of people, organizations, communities and/or society. A Logistics Web is a logistics web that is both open and global. As logistics is a broad loaded concept, it is useful to decompose a logistics web into five constituent webs.

(20)

10

• A mobility web is a web aiming to serve the needs for the mobility of physical entities. Such entities encompass people and other living beings as well as physical objects such as goods and materials. The Mobility Web is expected to enable seamless, efficient and reliable multi-modal, multi-segment transportation and handling of beings and goods within facilities and sites, across cities and regions, and around the world.

• A distribution web is a web aiming to serve the needs for distributing physical objects. The Distribution Web is expected to enable seamless, efficient and reliable distributed streaming deployment of encapsulated goods within myriads of open distribution centers across the world.

• A realization web is similarly defined as a web aiming to serve the needs for realizing physical objects. Realization is a generic term used to encompass manufacturing, production, assembly, finishing, personalization, retrofitting and other such activities. the Realization Web is expected to enable realizing physical products in a distributed way using open realization centers from all around the world.

• A supply web is a web aiming to serve the needs for supplying physical objects. It is about acquiring, buying and securing access to materials, parts, assemblies, products, as well as systems. Key actors in any supply webs are suppliers, contractors and providers connected through an open platform and exploiting the Mobility, Distribution and Realization Webs for supplying physical objects and services worldwide, expectedly enabling fast, efficient, reliable and resilient supply chains and networks.

• A service web is a web aiming to serve the needs for physical object usage. It is focusing on the accessibility of the services provided by, through, and with physical goods and beings. The Service Web is expected to enable efficient and sustainable collaborative consumption on a worldwide basis.

A Logistics Web is expected to enable a shift from private to open supply chains and logistics networks. It does so through the worldwide exploitation of its open actors and networks populating its mobility, distribution, realization, supply and service webs. This increases drastically the number and quality of logistics options available to each enterprise and person in the world. A Logistics Web is efficient when it serves the logistics needs with minimal resources overall. It is sustainable when it is capable of maintaining high economical, environmental and societal performance over the long run, capable of facing the risks and challenges associated with a dynamic, changing and fast-evolving context, contributing to a better world for the future generations. Such an efficient and sustainable Logistics Web is far beyond current worldwide reality and capabilities. Enabling its creation is the second foundation of the paradigm-breaking system that is referred to as the Physical Internet.

Open global logistics system

On one hand, the Logistics Web to be enabled by the Physical Internet is to be open and global. On the other end it has to be efficient and sustainable. The combination of these four demanding adjectives

(21)

11 leads to a complexity that can be harnessed by having the Physical Internet be an open global logistics system, as depicted in Figure 4. First, the Physical Internet is a system. Second, the Physical Internet is a global system, being both worldwide and multi-scale. Third, the Physical Internet is an open system. Thus, it is not a private, closed, member-only system.

The Physical Internet is to be thriving through its worldwide sharing of resources. Organizations are no longer limited by resources that they own and control or have pre-specified long-term contracts with. The Physical Internet allows organizations to examine Physical Internet-certified networks to determine which network best meets the needs of the organization at the time needed. The third foundation of the Physical Internet is hence the fact that it is an open global system.

Universal interconnectivity

Interconnectivity refers to the quality of a system to have its components seamlessly interconnected, easing the movement of physical entities from one another, their storage or treatment within any of its capable constituents, and the flow of responsibility sharing and contracting between actors. The fourth foundation of the Physical Internet is universal interconnectivity. It is the key to making the Physical Internet open, global, efficient and sustainable system.

The aim when conceptualizing and implementing the Physical Internet is towards universal interconnectivity so as to permit a high degree of collaboration. This collaboration is not meant to necessarily be part of a formal, rigid agreement, but rather developed on the fly from a detailed set of collaborative protocols. As depicted in Figure 4, this universal interconnectivity is to be achieved through interlaced physical, digital and operational interconnectivity. Physical interconnectivity is about making sure that any physical entity can flow seamlessly through the Physical Internet. Digital interconnectivity ensures that physical entities, constituents and actors can seamlessly exchange meaningful information across the Physical Internet, fast knowledge and fact-based decisioπ-making and action. Operational interconnectivity is about ensuring that iπ-the field operational processes as well as the business processes are seamlessly interlaced so that it is easy and efficient for users to exploit Physical Internet for fulfilling their logistics needs and for Physical Internet constituents to seamlessly collaborate in serving the logistics users of Physical Internet users.

Encapsulation

Encapsulation is the fifth foundation of the Physical Internet.

The Digital Internet deals only with information that is encapsulated in standard data packets whose format and structure are equipment independent. All protocols and interfaces in the Digital Internet are designed so as to exploit this standard encapsulation. In this way, data packets can be processed by different systems and through various networks: modems, copper wires, fiber optic wires, routers, etc.; local area networks, wide area networks, etc.; Intranets, Extranets, Virtual Private Networks, etc. (Kurose et al. 2010; Parziale et al. 2006).

(22)

12

On the large side, physical logistics systems today exploit the world-standard 20- and 40-foot sea container transport, handling and storage (Levison 2006). On the small side, parcel standardization is deployed and exploited by logistics giants such as DHL, FedEx, Purolator and UPS.

The Physical Internet generalizes and significantly extends this practice by encapsulating physical objects in physical packets or containers (hereafter termed π-containers so as to differentiate them from current containers), packets, boxes and so on. These π-containers are world-standard, smart, ecofriendly and modular. They are modularized and standardized worldwide in terms of dimensions, functions and fixtures.

The Physical Internet deals directly with the π-containers, not with the freight, merchandises, products and materials that are encapsulated within them. This allows all transportation, handling and storage devices, means and systems to be designed and engineered to exploit this standard, modular encapsulation.

The Physical Internet drives product design for encapsulation. Indeed any product having to flow through the Physical Internet contributes to logistics efficiency and sustainability by being designed and engineered so as to minimize the load it generates on the Physical Internet, with dimensions adapted to standard container dimensions.

The Physical Internet also relies heavily on informational and communicational encapsulation. It interacts with the smart π-containers, not with the products they embed.

Standard smart interfaces

Interfaces are critical for achieving efficient and sustainable universal interconnectivity. Four types of interfaces have paramount importance in the Physical Internet: fixtures, devices, nodes, and π-platforms.

Functionally standard and modular physical fixtures are necessary for ensuring that π-containers can flow smoothly through the Physical Internet. Each π-container is equipped with such π-fixtures that allow them to interlock with each other, to be snapped to a storage structure, to be secured on a carrier, to be conveyed easily, and so on.

At an operational level, critical interfaces are the logistics π-nodes.

At the basic information and communication level, critical interfaces are π-devices.

At a higher information and communication level, digital π- platforms are pivotal interfaces in enabling the open market for logistics services in the Physical Internet as well as the smooth systemic operation of the interacting π-constituents and routing of π-containers from source to destination through the Physical Internet. These π-platforms are enabling humaπ-human, humaπ-agent and agent-agent interfacing.

(23)

13 Standard collaborative protocols

Protocols are at the core of the Digital Internet, as illustrated by the central role played by the multi-layer TCP/IP communications protocol suite. Similarly, such a multi-multi-layer suite of world-standard protocols is the seventh foundation of the Physical Internet. Basic protocols validate the physical integrity of π-containers and other physical π-constituents and guide the transfer of π-containers from one constituent to another. A universal protocol assigns a unique identification number to each π-container and each π-constituent. Higher-level protocols focus on the integrity of the π-networks, the routing of π-containers through these π-networks, the management of shipments and deployments of containers through the Physical Internet. There are contracting protocols exploiting standard π-contract formats for logistics services within the Physical Internet.

A key protocol set ensures that the Physical Internet relies on live open monitoring of achieved performance of all its actors and constituents, focusing on key performance indices of critical facets such as speed, service level, reliability, safety and security. This protocol brings about the required transparency ensuring that logistics decisions are backed by facts.

A highest-level protocol is used for multi-level Physical Internet capability readiness certification of containers, handling systems, vehicles, devices, platforms, ports, hubs, roads, cities, regions, protocols, processes and so on.

Driven by innovation

In its quest for ever-better logistics efficiency and sustainability, the Physical Internet will relentlessly evolve, subject to pressures for change from an interlaced flux of open business, technological and infrastructural innovation from its myriad of stakeholders.

Technological innovation stems from every type of constituent of the Physical Internet.

Myriads of businesses will concurrently be using the Physical Internet, such as retailers, distributers and manufacturers, or enabling its operation, such logistics service providers and solutions providers. Innovative revenue and risk-sharing models for the various stakeholders are to be developed.

Infrastructure innovation is stimulated by the open systemic coherence and the universal interconnectivity. Standardizations, rationalizations and automations are to be exploited to conceive, engineer and implement π-capable logistics infrastructures that are themselves going to alter the shape of the Physical Internet.

2.3. Physical elements

In (Montreuil, 2010) three key types of physical element enabling the Physical Internet are introduced. These are the containers, the nodes and the movers. In presenting the Physical Internet elements, the prefix pi is used, as the pi symbol corresponds to the Greek letter PI, which happens to correspond to

(24)

14

the two-letter abbreviation for the Physical Internet. Therefore, it exploits the prefix pi in order to differentiate the entities conceived for the Physical Internet from their contemporary.

In the next sections the pi-containers, pi-movers and pi-nodes are further elaborated.

2.3.1. PI-Containers

Montreuil (Montreuil, 2011) and Ballot et al. (Ballot et al., 2014) outlined key functional and physical specifications of PI-container:

- Coming in various modular sizes, from cargo container sizes down to tiny sizes.

- Easy to handle, store, transport, seal, clench, interlock, load, unload, construct, dismantle, panel, compose and decompose.

- Made of environment friendly materials, with minimal offservice footprint.

- Minimizing packaging materials requirements through the menabling of fixture-based protection and stabilization of their embedded products.

- Coming in various usage-adapted structural grades.

- Having conditioning capabilities (e.g. temperature) as necessary. - Sealable for security purposes.

Montreuil et al. (Montreuil et al., 2014) further specified the characteristics of the PI-container as synthesized in Figure 5 and presented three layers of modular categories of PI-containers. These categories Transport containers Pods), Handling containers Boxes) and Packaging containers (pi-Packs). The relationships between the three categories of PI-containers are shown in Figure 6.

(25)

15

Figure 6 - Relationships between the three categories of PI-containers (Krommenacker et al., 2016)

The informational aspects listed below are based on the functional definition and requirements of Physical Internet (Montreuil et al., 2011), (Ballot et al., 2014), (Sallez et al., 2016) and (MODULUSHCA, 2014):

1. Identification: Each PI-container must have a unique worldwide identifier in the PI networks. 2. Traceability and tracking: The PI-management systems must be able to locate each PI-container

and to provide traceability information (e.g. status, arrival and departure dates in PI facilities, environmental conditions when necessary) to key stakeholders.

3. State monitoring: PI-coordinators must be able to monitor the condition and data integrity of the cargo encapsulated in the PI-containers. For example, it implies obtaining information on legal agreements, the respect of the cold chain for perishable goods or on the opening of containers to prevent theft.

4. Data compatibility and interoperability: For the sake of coordinating actors and containers in PI, PI coordinators should be capable to communicate with the heterogeneous information systems used by the container users.

5. Confidentiality: Except if the users allow or desire transparency, the PI-containers must remain “black boxes” for the other actors of the PI-network and on the Digital Internet as well. Particularly, the content of a handling or transport PI-container must by default be known only by authorized parties according to their rights. This implies data encryption and enhanced dynamic right management.

In addition, to cover all informational aspects, the PI-containers must also exhibit some communicational and decisional capabilities (Sallez et al., 2016). The communication capabilities are important for traceability and condition monitoring issues. Whereas the decision capabilities of the PI-containers

(26)

16

should be able to make some decisions autonomously, for example ultimately determining the optimal transport route from origin to destination at the network level, or optimizing handling and sorting movements at PI-hub level.

2.3.2. PI-Movers

Montreuil (Montreuil, 2011) describes the nature of pi-movers with an emphasis on their funamental essence an the characterization of the basic types:

In the Physical Internet, π-containers are generically moved around by π-movers. Moving is used here as a generic equivalent to verbs such as transporting, conveying, handling, lifting and manipulating. The main types of π-movers include π-transporters, π-conveyors and π-handlers. The latter are humans that are qualified for moving πcontainers. All π-movers may temporarily store π-containers even though this is not their primary mission.

The set of π-transporters conceptually includes π-vehicles and π-carriers. These are respectively vehicles and carriers specifically designed for enabling easy, secure and efficient moving of π-containers. They are differentiated by the fact that π-vehicles are self-propelled while π-carriers have to be pushed or pulled by π-vehicles or by π-handlers.

The set of π-vehicles notably includes π-trucks, π-locomotives, π-boats, π¬planes, π-lifts and π-robots. These all have contemporary equivalents, yet they differ by the key fact that they are habilitated to operate within the Physical Internet. Similarly, the set of π-carriers includes notably π-trailers, π-carts, π-barges and π-wagons.

Consider the most typical kind of vehicle used in a facility: the ubiquitous lift truck. Such a lift truck takes its reason for existence from the fact that moving goods stacked on a pallet is widely used in current operations. In the Physical Internet, the pallet as we currently know it loses its purpose due to the fact that π-lift-trucks only move and store π-containers that are designed-for-handling, stackable, inter-lockable, and so on. Such π-containers thus have the means to attach themselves to a π-mover without having to be placed on a platform. Thus, the need for forks as currently used to support pallets of goods is removed. π-trucks will gain from innovations exploiting the standard modular π-containers. As an illustration, Figure 3 conceptually depicts a π-lift-truck currently lifting a composite π-container without reliance on a pallet and forks. It exploits a structural frame with gears lockable on the π-container, allowing to hold it and to lift it as desired.

(27)

17 Complementary to π-vehicles, the π-conveyors are conveyors specialized in the continuous flowing of π-containers along determined paths without using π-vehicles and π-carriers. Contemporary conveyors typically use belts or rollers to support goods during their continuous flow. Such belts and rollers, with their underlying mechanics, represent a significant part of the overall cost and physical footprint of the conveyor. As they are explicitly designed for π-containers, π-conveyors may well differ from contemporary conveyors by not having rollers nor belts, the π-containers simply clipping themselves to the π-conveyor gears so as to be towed. They indeed only need an interface to connect themselves to the tracking mechanics of the conveyor core. This simplifies drastically the nature of π-conveyors, while leaving a lot of room for innovation from conveying-solution providers. Note that as contemporary conveyors, πconveyors may or not be motorized. When not motorized they can potentially exploit gravity or π-handlers to ease the moving of π-containers.

Figure 8 - π-conveyor grid composed of flexible conveying pi-cells (Montreuil et al., 2010)

As an innovative illustration among many possibilities, Figure 8 displays a set of πconveyors. Here square conveying cells allow moving π-containers in the four cardinal directions. Each cell is dimensioned to the size of the smallest π-container to be conveyed. When only such smallest square π-containers are handled, then each cell autonomously conveys a πcontainer to one of its up to four neighboring cells. In the example of Figure 8 πcontainers of a variety of modular dimensions are conveyed concurrently. This requires coordination of adjacent π-cells for them to act jointly in conveying a large π-container such as π-container c171 occupying a 2X3 grid and having to be conveyed southwestward. Efficient and robust decentralized or centralized algorithms for controlling a grid of such π-conveyors have yet to be developed.

(28)

18

2.3.3. Pi-Nodes

Montreuil (Montreuil, 2011) presents the operations and serverics performed at the pi-nodes and devides them in seven types:

1. Pi-transits

2. Pi-switches and pi bridges 3. Pi-hubs

4. Pi-sorters

5. Pi-composers 6. Pi-stores 7. Pi-gateways

The π-nodes of the Physical Internet

The π-nodes are locations expressly designed to perform operations on π-containers, such as receiving, testing, moving, routing, sorting, handling, placing, storing, picking, monitoring, labeling, paneling, assembling, disassembling, folding, snapping, unsnapping, composing, decomposing and shipping π-containers. There exist a variety of π-nodes delivering services of distinct natures, from the simple transfer of π-carriers between π-vehicles to complex multimodal multiplexing of π-containers.

Generically, the π-nodes are locations that are interconnected to the logistics activities. The activities at a π-node may affect physical changes, such as switching from a transportation mode to another. They may result in contractual changes for the π¬containers. To each π-node is associated at least one event for each π-container to ensure traceability of its passage through the π-node.

The π-nodes are publicly rated on a number of key attributes, such as speed, service level adherence, handled dimensions of π-containers, overall capacity, modal interface and accepted duration of stay. Clients will use this kind of information for decision making relative to π-container deployment. Other pertinent Physical Internet entities will also exploit it for routing purposes, through the Physical Internet routing protocol.

The π-node types presented hereafter vary in terms of mission orientation, scope and scale, as well as in terms of capabilities and capacities, yet they all have in common that they are explicitly specialized to treat π-containers at the physical and informational levels.

The π-transits

The π-transits are π-nodes having the mission of enabling and achieving the transfer of π-carriers from their inbound π-vehicles to their outbound π-vehicles. They allow the distributed transport of π-carriers by a series of π-vehicles, each responsible for a segment of the overall route from primary source to final destination. π-transits aim to ensure the efficient, easy, safe and secure execution of these activities for significant flows of π-vehicles and π-trailers. The π-transits are generally either π-sites or π¬facilities, requiring low investment in π-systems.

(29)

19 The π-switches and π-bridges

A π-switch is a π-node having for mission to enable and achieve the unimodal transfer of π-containers from an incoming π-mover to a departing π-mover. Examples include rail-rail π-switches and conveyor-conveyor π-switches. There is no multiplexing. There is rather an essentially linear transfer.

A π-bridge is a π-node having a mission of the same type as a π-switch, specializing in the one-to-one multimodal transfer of π-containers not involving any multiplexing. An example is a rail-route π-bridge. The main tasks of a π-switch and a π-bridge are double. From a physical perspective, their main role is the efficient, safe, secure and reliable transfer of π¬containers from one π-mover to another. From an informational perspective, their mainrole is ensure that the receiving mover is ready before the π-container is transferred, that all parties are informed of the transfer, and that the contracts are terminated and activated respectively for the incoming π-mover and the departing π-mover.

The π-hubs

The hubs are nodes having for mission to enable the transfer of containers from incoming π-movers to outgoing π-π-movers. Their mission is conceptually similar to the mission of π-transits, but dealing with π-containers themselves rather than dealing strictly with the π-carriers. They enable unimodal π-container crossdocking operations. Furthermore, π-hubs will be at the core of fast, efficient and reliable multimodal transportation, by allowing ease of transfer of π-containers between combinations of road, rail, water and air transportation.

The π-sorters

A π-sorter is a π-node receiving π-containers from one or multiple entry points and having to sort them so as to ship each of them from a specified exit point, potentially in a specified order. A π-sorter may incorporate a network of conveyors and/or other embedded sorters to achieve its mission. The π-sorters are typically embedded within more complex π-nodes, such as π-hubs.

The π-composers

A π-composer is a π-node with the mission of constructing composite π-containers from specified sets of π-containers, usually according to a 3D layout specified by the end customer or for the purpose of improving efficiency within the physical Internet, and/or of dismantling composite π-containers into a number of π-containers that may be either smaller unitary or composite π-containers, according to client specifications. The composition and decomposition of composite π-containers are respectively realized by snapping together (interlocking) and unsnapping its smaller constituent π-containers.

The resulting π-container in Figure 9 is a perfect cube with no empty space. Even though spatial modularity of π-containers helps fitting sets of π-containers into a compact composite π-container, it will not be always possible to reach a perfect fit as in Figure 9. In such cases, there are two basic options relative to composition feasibility. First, the holes may be left as such when they are minor and do not impact the structural integrity of the composite π-container. Second, when the holes have significant

(30)

20

negative impact on the composition, empty π-container structures can be inserted to fill in the holes. Such modular structures would not need to have closed walls and could be dismantled upon decomposition of the composite π-container.

Figure 9 – Left: Illustrating the functionality of a π-composer. Right: Illustrating stacking and snapping functionalities of a π-store (Montreuil, 2011)

The π-stores

A store is a node having the mission of enabling and achieving for its clients the storage of π-containers during mutually agreed upon target time windows. These can be very precise or be more probabilistic, shorter or longer term, as best fit the circumstances. π-stores differ from contemporary warehouses and storage systems on two major points. First, they focus strictly on π-containers: they can stack them, interlock them, snap them to a rack, and so on. Second, they do not deal with products as stock-keeping units (SKUs), but rather focus on π-containers, each being individually contracted, tracked and managed to ensure service quality and reliability.

Figure 9 illustrates the potential stacking and snapping functionalities of a π-store enabled by the fact that it only deals with modular π-containers that are designed for handling and storage.

The π-gateways

The π-gateways are π-nodes that either receive π-containers and release them so they and their content can be accessed in a private network not part of the Physical Internet, or receive π-containers from a private network out of the Physical Internet and register them into the Physical Internet, directing them toward their first destination along their journey across the Physical Internet. For example, a factory that is not internally π-enabled may have π-gateways at its receiving and shipping centers.

Generically, π-facilities of various types may embed π-gateways and tightly contained centers that are not explicitly part of the Physical Internet. For example, a π¬distributor may have some focused out-of-PI centers doing some personalizing, value-added operations on some types of products embedded in π-containers, according to client specifications. Such centers may open π-containers and actually work on its embedded objects. π-gateways ensure the exit to and reentry from such an out-of-PI center of π-containers.

(31)

21

2.4. Intelligent control

In this section of intelligent control within the Physical Internet is first an Open Logistics Interconnection model introduced. Second, the PI-container activeness is discussed. Third, the routing steps are described. Finally, an approach is proposed to control composition/decomposition issues in PI-hubs.

2.4.1. Open Logistics Interconnection model

Current logistics networks are mostly fragmented, each dedicated to a specific organization, such as a car manufacturer, a retail chain or a postal service (Montreuil et al., 2012b).

In order to emphasize this current fragmentation of logistics networks, Figure 10 on the left illustrates two company-specific logistics networks (plain and dashed) between the company’s plants (square) and warehouses (triangles) and their customers’ delivery points (circles). These networks, even though they physically overlap each other, are completely disconnected. On the right a view of the interconnected logistics network enabled by the Physical Internet.

Figure 10 – Left: Overlapping yet disconnected logistics networks. Right: A topology of interconnected logistics networks (Montreuil et al., 2012b)

Montreuil et al. (Montreuil et al., 2012b) states that achieving universal logistics interconnection is a demanding endeavor. Logistics networks combine physical objects and digital information. This requires the interconnection approach to combine both the digital and physical facets.

Open Systems Interconnection model

To achieve an interconnected logistics network Montreuil et al. (Montreuil et al., 2012b) exploits the Open Systems Interconnection model (OSI) introduced by Zimmermann (Zimmermann, 1980):

“The basic idea of layering is that each layer adds value to services provided by the set of lower layers in such a way that the highest layer is offered the set of services needed to run distributed applications” (Zimmermann, 1980).

The standard OSI model was designed with the explicit objective of being open to a variety of systems. As stated by Zimmermann (Zimmermann, 1980), “The term “open” was chosen to emphasize the fact that by conforming to those international standards, a system will be open to all other systems obeying the same standards throughout the world”.

(32)

22

Each layer of the OSI model has a specific purpose:

1. The physical layer defines electrical and physical specifications for devices. In particular, it defines the relationship between a device and a transmission medium, such as a copper or optical cable. 2. The link layer has the function and procedural means to transfer data between network entities and

to detect and possibly correct errors that may occur in the physical layer.

3. The network layer provides the functional and procedural means of transferring variable length data sequences from a source host on one network to a destination host on a different network, while maintaining the quality of service requested by the transport layer. It performs network routing functions.

4. The transport layer provides transparent transfer of data between end users, providing reliable data transfer services to the upper layers. It controls the reliability of a given link through flow control, segmentation/ desegmentation, and error control.

5. The session layer controls the dialogues between computers. It establishes the connections between the local and remote application.

6. The presentation layer establishes context between applicatioπ-layer entities. It provides independence from data representation by translating application and network formats. It transforms data into the form that the application accepts. It formats and encrypts data to be sent across a network.

7. The highest application layer is closest to the end user. It identifies communicating partners, determines resource availability, and synchronizes communication

Layering aims to ensure independence of each layer by defining services provided by a layer to the next higher layer, independent of how these services are performed (Zimmermann, 1980).

Open Logistics Interconnection model

The Open Logistics Interconnection model (OLI) introduced by Montreuil et al. (Montreuil et al., 2012b) proposes the following seven layers, as seen in Figure 11, and describes the essence of each layer:

(1) physical, (2) link, (3) network, (4) routing, (5) shipping, (6) encapsulation, and (7) Logistics Web. As in the OSI model, a layer in the OLI model is a collection of similarly conceptual functions providing services to its upper layer and receiving services from its lower layer. In the OLI model, these services can be offered by software agents, automatons and equipment, or yet by humans (directly or through a software interface). They can be also encapsulated in organizations.

(1) The physical layer, deals with moving and operating physical elements of the Physical Internet. These include π-containers as well as a variety of Physical Internet means such as vehicles, carriers, conveyors, stores and sorters (Montreuil et al. 2010). This layer validates that the physical elements are operating according to specifications, that for example a π - conveyor indeed allows moving π -containers between its entry and exit points.

(33)

23

Figure 11 - Communications between layered instances in the OLI model (Montreuil et al., 2012b)

The physical layer insures the standardization of the physical interconnections of the Physical Internet. It defines the physical specifications for π-containers, such as structural or electrical specifications, as well as of π -means. Functionally and dimensionally, it notably specifies the layouts and relative positioning of entry and exit points, gripping mechanisms and interlocking mechanisms. It monitors the π - means , aiming to detect and correct their physical dysfunctions such as the loss of integrity of a π -container having been dropped, unsealed without client agreement, or whose temperature control is malfunctioning.

(2) The link layer focuses on the detection and possible corrections of unexpected events form the operations at the physical layer by checking consistency between physical operations and its digital mirror. It notably allows to detect and to engage protection against, or correction of dysfunctions such as a road segment or a conveyor being blocked, a π -container lost while being sorted, breakdown of security tracking of π-container moving along the π -link, or yet the appearance of an unknown security-threatening π -container. This layer is especially essential to ensure hand-over of a π-container from an operator to another and to avoid error propagation through the physical network.

(3) The network layer focuses on the interconnectivity, integrity and interoperability of networks within the Physical Internet. It provides the functional and procedural means for insuring that π-containers can be routed within a π-network and across π-networks while maintaining the equality of service requested by the routing layer. Indeed it provides the protocols for π -containers assignment to means (handlers, vehicles, etc.) across the networks of the Physical Internet. It engages the triple-level assignments of π -containers to π -means on π -links according to the route provided by the routing layer. It monitors the -containers as they flow across the Physical Internet, identifies routing errors and engaging in minimizing their impact, and complementarily identifies punctual routing opportunities and

(34)

24

reacts so as to take advantage of them. This layer also defines the composition and decomposition of -containers, the assignment and control of flows of -containers across -networks.

(4) The routing layer provides the functional and procedural means for getting a set of π -containers from its source to its destination in an efficient and reliable manner. It enables and controls the efficient and reliable inter-node transport and handling services to the upper layers according to their environmental, economical and service priority specifications. Stated otherwise, it defines for a set of container their best path according to networks status. It is at this layer that -routing protocols are defined, put into action and controlled. It monitors the status and service capability, capacity and performance of all π -means within each π -network. It does the same at an aggregate network level. For example it monitors the current accessibility of a given π-network.

(5) The shipping layer provides the functional and procedural means for enabling the efficient and reliable shipping of sets (corresponding to orders for instance) of -containers from shippers to final recipients. It sets, manages and closes the shipment between the shipper and each recipient. It defines the type of service to be delivered (normal, express, etc.) and insures the management of receipt acknowledgements. It establishes and rules the procedures and protocols for monitoring, verifying, adjourning, terminating and diversion of shipments.

(6) The encapsulation layer provides the functional and procedural means for efficiently encapsulates products of a user in uniquely identified -containers before accessing the PI networks. It allows linking product supply, realization, distribution and mobility taken at the upper Logistics Web level with their - container deployment implications. It transposes decisions about moving and storing products into decisions about moving and storing -containers. It proceeds first to encapsulation assignments of products within specific – containers. It monitors and validates the capabilities, capacities, prices and performances of -nodes and -means, in general of - service providers, as well as the status of signed contracts and of deployed -containers.

(7) The Logistics Web layer is the interface between the Physical Internet and the users of logistics services. It provides the functional and procedural means enabling them to exploit the Physical Internet, indeed to take dynamic decisions about product supply, realization, distribution and mobility through an open and global Logistics Web enabled by the Physical Internet. Here, the term product is used as a generic expression encompassing materials, parts, modules, finished products, and so on. Such activities as the expression of needs, the programming of flows and the establishments of supply contracts are part of this layer. It monitors contracts, stocks, flows, service provider capabilities, capacities and performances by exploiting an informational synchronization with the encapsulation layer.

Services between the OLI layers

The OLI model allows organizing the offered services on a layer per layer basis. Figure 12 illustrates this structuring by focusing on the interlayer services involved in a client-supplier purchase order.