Which weight definition controls the layer count?
A beverage planning worksheet says “720 kg capacity,” while a separate handling worksheet says “750 kg gross.” Before choosing a stack, the planner must identify what each figure includes. A cargo payload budget and a total palletized-load budget are not interchangeable. This fictional arithmetic scenario makes the distinction visible. Every weight limit, case measurement, and order quantity below is an example input, not a manufacturer rating, customer outcome, legal limit, or beverage-industry norm.
Assume identical packed cases measuring 400 by 200 by 250 mm, each weighing 15 kg including its packaging. The pallet is 1200 by 800 mm, 144 mm high, and has an example measured tare of 30 kg. Ancillary materials add 6 kg per pallet. Rotation is allowed, with zero added case gap or edge clearance. The entered total loaded-height limit is 1500 mm. Actual package strength, securing, equipment suitability, and weight distribution remain unknown.
Calculate the layer before applying weight
A straight grid fits three 400 mm sides along the length and four 200 mm sides across the width. TI is twelve. Rotating every case also gives twelve, and twelve case areas exactly fill the stated pallet footprint. One complete layer weighs 12 times 15 = 180 kg. Height alone permits floor((1500 minus 144) / 250) = 5 layers, or sixty cases. That height-only load stands 1394 mm and weighs 936 kg gross after adding the 36 kg carrier and ancillary components.
Scenario A applies a 750 kg maximum gross weight. It leaves 750 minus 30 minus 6 = 714 kg for cases. Whole layers therefore number floor(714 / 180) = 3. Four layers would contain forty-eight cases and weigh 756 kg gross, so they exceed this example limit by 6 kg. The permitted arithmetic plan is thirty-six cases, 894 mm loaded height, and 576 kg gross.
Scenario B applies only a 720 kg rated-payload input, interpreted here as the packed-case cargo budget. Four layers weigh exactly 720 kg as cargo. Adding tare and ancillary materials gives 756 kg gross. The payload comparison passes while the separate 750 kg gross comparison would fail. If both constraints truly apply, enter both; the tool selects three layers because the gross constraint is more restrictive.
| Input or result | A: 750 kg gross | B: 720 kg cargo payload only |
|---|---|---|
| Height-derived HI | 5 | 5 |
| Weight-derived HI | 3 | 4 |
| Selected TI / HI | 12 / 3 | 12 / 4 |
| Cases / loaded height | 36 / 894 mm | 48 / 1144 mm |
| Packed-case cargo | 540 kg | 720 kg |
| Gross with 30 kg tare and 6 kg extras | 576 kg | 756 kg |
| Against separate 750 kg gross check | Within | Exceeded by 6 kg |
Use the constraint tool and inspect the selected mode
Open Scenario A with the gross constraint. The TI-HI calculator should show twelve cases per layer, three layers, and gross weight as the limiting constraint. The height limit remains present but does not determine the final HI.
For Scenario B with the payload constraint, verify that the gross-limit field is blank and the payload field contains 720. A copied browser tab with an old gross limit still present would calculate a different scenario. Record the actual fields, rather than relying on the link label alone.
The basic calculator handles weight differently: it retains its height-derived HI and displays a weight warning. It also lacks the same tare accounting. A sixty-case height result with an Over warning is not an automatically reduced three-layer stack. Use the dedicated constraint tool when the goal is to derive HI from height and weight together.
Convert the complete-pallet plan into an order record
For a fictional order of ninety cases using Scenario A, ceil(90 / 36) = 3 pallets. The case distribution is thirty-six, thirty-six, and eighteen. The full pallets each weigh 576 kg. The final pallet weighs 18 times 15 + 30 + 6 = 306 kg gross. Shipment gross is 1458 kg, also obtained from 90 times 15 + 3 times 36. Copying 576 kg to all three would overstate the actual example by 270 kg.
The final eighteen cases do not fill an integer number of twelve-case layers. Its height depends on the selected partial arrangement, and this whole-layer calculation does not produce that arrangement. Keep its measured loaded dimensions separately. The capacity-based weight record reproduces the groups and compares the heaviest gross pallet against 750 kg.
Check what the input measurements include
Confirm that 15 kg means one complete packed case. Product-only mass requires a separate packaging reconciliation. Do not add a carton a second time when it is already included. Likewise, the 6 kg ancillary figure must describe the additional materials actually counted: it is not an automatic percentage allowance. If the final partial pallet uses different protection, calculate its weight separately rather than assuming the same component value.
If tare is unknown, leave it unknown in the weight calculator. Gross output then remains incomplete and an entered gross limit cannot be verified. Entering zero simply to obtain a green comparison hides missing information. A variable case mass also needs review; one mean can conceal a heavier pallet. This tool neither measures a pallet nor assigns statistical uncertainty to an estimated case weight.
Check the exact gross boundary
With the same components, four layers need exactly 756 kg gross. Raising the hypothetical gross budget from 750 to 756 would change the numeric maximum from three to four layers; raising it to 755 would not. That observation is a sensitivity check, not a recommendation to change an equipment limit. A budget must come from the actual responsible source. If measured extra materials increase instead, recalculate from those components. Do not round the 756 kg requirement down merely to align it with a convenient worksheet value.
Record the decision and its boundary
The provisional decision record for A is: millimetres and kilograms; uniform TI 12; constraint mode; height 1500; gross 750; payload not supplied; tare 30; ancillary 6; case weight 15; height HI 5; gross HI 3; selected HI 3; thirty-six cases; 894 mm; 576 kg gross. Attach the ninety-case distribution and mark the tail height unresolved. Those details make the numerical conclusion reproducible without suggesting that three layers have been physically approved.
Before release, obtain the applicable equipment data and packaging instructions from the responsible operation. Numeric headroom below 750 kg is not a safety factor, rack assessment, axle-load calculation, or authorization for beverage stacking. If the supposed 720 kg capacity has a different component definition, revise B at the source. The practical decision is to reconcile the definitions first and then choose the stack that satisfies every confirmed constraint.