Compare what each tool actually constrains
The basic calculator chooses the better permitted uniform orientation and derives complete layers from an entered height. Its case-mass comparison is a displayed weight status; it does not reduce the number of layers to satisfy that mass entry. The TI-HI calculator can instead calculate HI from the minimum of active height, gross-mass and rated-payload ceilings. Different totals can therefore arise from different calculation scopes even when the footprint dimensions match.
Start by aligning units, deck and case dimensions, base height and rotation. Then compare the modes and the mass scope. The basic mass display uses case count times entered case mass. It does not add pallet tare and ancillary materials to that number. If you compare it with a gross total from TI-HI, explain those added components rather than calling one tool inaccurate for counting a different quantity.
Reproduce the shared height scenario first
Assume a 1200 by 800 mm deck, a 144 mm base and cases 400 by 300 by 250 mm, with horizontal rotation allowed and no spacing in the uniform comparison. Both tools can use an eight-case uniform layer for this scenario. An entered 1500 mm total loaded-height condition gives floor((1500 − 144) / 250) = 5 layers. That height-only stack contains forty cases and stands 1394 mm high.
With each packed case at 12 kg, the basic case-mass amount is forty times twelve, or 480 kg. If its entered comparison limit is 500 kg, its current interface shows a Warn weight status for that case amount. The count remains forty. The display classification is part of that interface; it is not a recommended operating reserve, pallet approval or evidence that tare and accessories are included.
| Calculation | Case quantity | Mass quantity and effect |
|---|---|---|
| Basic height-derived count | 40 | 480 kg of entered cases; count unchanged by status |
| TI-HI height-only comparison | 40 | Gross needs its separate component inputs |
| TI-HI with tare 25 and extras 3 | 40 before applying gross ceiling | 508 kg gross |
| TI-HI maximum gross 500 | 32 in four complete layers | 412 kg gross |
| Basic with rotation disabled | 30 in five layers | A separate footprint scenario, not a weight correction |
Add the components needed for a gross comparison
In TI-HI, supply an assumed actual pallet tare of 25 kg and ancillary materials of 3 kg. The same forty packed cases now give 480 + 25 + 3 = 508 kg gross. Under an assumed 500 kg maximum gross condition, the case allowance is 472 kg. Dividing by twelve permits thirty-nine whole cases, but complete eight-case layers limit the result to four layers and thirty-two cases.
Those four layers stand 144 + 4 times 250 = 1144 mm and weigh 32 times 12 + 25 + 3 = 412 kg gross. The unused dimensional space does not authorize an additional complete layer: the fifth would give 508 kg gross. Neither the 500 kg input nor the 25 kg tare is a universal value. Use the documented limit and correct component masses for the actual application before treating the result as a check of that application.
A layout difference is a separate discrepancy
The basic tool compares two uniform grids. A TI-HI layout can use the identical-rectangle search, which may return a mixed candidate with more cases for some footprints. If TI differs before height and mass are applied, compare the returned placements, rotation setting, gap and clearance. Do not attribute a higher footprint count to a gross-weight feature. The layout task and the complete-layer constraints are separate stages.
For this particular 400 by 300 mm case on 1200 by 800 mm, eight exactly fills the deck area in the rotated uniform arrangement, so a valid larger count cannot fit under the same zero-spacing rectangle inputs. The example isolates the weight difference. With a different footprint, preserve the mixed search status and its scope. A best-found result is a valid candidate discovered by finite search, not automatically a proof of a maximum or an operational approval.
Build a two-tool reconciliation
List identical dimensional inputs, permitted rotation, spacing and units. Record basic TI, HI, total and case-mass status separately from TI-HI mode, tare, extras, active limits and gross mass. For the example retain basic forty cases and 480 kg of cases, then TI-HI thirty-two cases and 412 kg gross under the assumed 500 kg gross condition. Note which difference each added field explains.
Use a consistent link for the basic side of the comparison
Open the basic height-and-case-mass example. Confirm the restored fields and note that its output quantity is not reduced by the weight status. Then enter the same geometry in the TI-HI calculator, adding the stated tare, extras and gross condition in its constrained mode.
Read the output labels before copying values into a report. Case mass, gross mass, occupied height and maximum allowed height are distinct quantities. A discrepancy should end with a statement such as “gross mass limited complete layers to four,” rather than a vague claim that one calculator is more conservative. The selected conditions and component scopes provide the actual explanation.
Keep the operational conclusion limited to the calculation
A reconciled numerical result confirms that the tools apply their stated models consistently to the supplied inputs. It does not establish a rated application, verified case stacking strength or a suitable partial layer. If the work requires a specific approval, retain the responsible evidence separately and ensure the entered mass scope matches it. Recheck the comparison when the pallet, packaging, measured case dimensions or applicable conditions change.
Reference scope
EPAL 1 product information supports the example deck and base reference. All case masses and limiting values in this comparison are explicitly stated assumptions.