Decide whether a packaging height revision changes capacity
A carton revision may leave length and width unchanged while increasing packed height. The layer footprint count then stays the same, but HI can cross a whole-layer boundary. A planner should rerun the stack rather than carrying the old cases-per-pallet value forward because TI did not change. Height and footprint answer different geometric questions.
Assume a fictional 1200 by 800 mm base, 144 mm high, and cases with a 400 by 300 mm outside footprint. Rotation is allowed and added gaps and clearance are zero. Uniform TI is eight. The total loaded-height budget is hypothetically 1500 mm. Compare several vertical case heights without supplying mass or equipment-rating data. This exercise establishes height arithmetic only.
Compare heights around the fifth-layer threshold
Available case-stack height is 1500 minus 144 = 1356 mm. At 270 mm per case, five layers need 1350 mm above the base, making total height 1494. At 272 mm, five would need 1360 above the base and exceed the budget; only four fit, making height 1232. Increasing one case-height input by two millimetres removes a whole layer in this comparison.
| Packed case height | HI | Cases per complete pallet | Loaded height | Headroom |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 270 mm | 5 | 40 | 1494 mm | 6 mm |
| 271.2 mm | 5 | 40 | 1500 mm | 0 mm |
| 272 mm | 4 | 32 | 1232 mm | 268 mm |
| 226 mm | 6 | 48 | 1500 mm | 0 mm |
The larger 268 mm of unused height in the 272 mm record is still insufficient for its next complete layer. It does not contradict the smaller forty-case count. The model works in integer layers, so spare height can jump upward when a layer is lost. A percentage-fill comparison alone can obscure that discrete behavior.
Reproduce the unchanged footprint and changed stack
Open the 270 mm case revision and the 272 mm revision. Keep length, width, mode, orientation permission, and allowances identical.
A 226 mm comparison shows the sixth-layer boundary. The arithmetic changes the number of complete layers, not the footprint arrangement. No gross mass is calculated without case mass and tare, and no payload constraint is inferred from a shorter case.
Find the maximum case height for a chosen HI
For five planned layers, divide available height 1356 by five to obtain 271.2 mm per layer under the bare-case model. That explains why 270 passes and 272 fails. For six, the corresponding value is 226. These are thresholds derived from the fictional total budget, not allowable packaging tolerances or instructions to reduce measured case dimensions.
A source measurement rounded to 271 mm could hide a value above 271.2. Preserve the measured vertical envelope and its basis before comparing a boundary. Horizontal rotation does not let the tool exchange the 272 mm case height with its 300 mm width or 400 mm length. Turning a case on its side is another physical orientation and is not authorized by the footprint rotation checkbox.
Review whether one height represents the whole group
The tool assumes identical case heights as well as identical footprints. If a batch contains measured height variation, one selected value must have a documented basis; the program does not combine individually taller and shorter cases into layers. A mean height can conceal a taller envelope relevant to a tight stack. Use the actual packing specification or an appropriately reviewed measurement model, and label it. The count from a uniform-height comparison should not become a claim about a varied batch without that evidence.
Separate a case revision from added components
Interlayer sheets, a cap, and base height changes can alter the available case-stack height even if the carton revision is unchanged. Record their actual dimensions. The current tool has no independent sheet-thickness model, and an ancillary mass input does not add height. A repeated case-height field should describe the packed case rather than silently count another component at the wrong repetition level.
If the case is shorter but its packed mass increases, weight may become the controlling constraint. The height-only capacity comparison then does not describe the final accepted HI. Enter actual case mass, tare, ancillary mass, and confirmed gross or payload definitions and recompute the combined result. A footprint count remaining eight does not imply a fixed layer mass.
Check order consequences without assuming a carrier saving
For eighty-one cases, the forty-case capacity needs three carriers: forty, forty, and one. The thirty-two-case capacity also needs three: thirty-two, thirty-two, and seventeen. The carrier count is unchanged despite the lost layer, but the last pallet's quantity and likely envelope differ. For eighty cases, forty per carrier needs two while thirty-two needs three. Use the actual release quantity before estimating the effect.
Those splits are conditional on the capacities being physically accepted. Packaging support, handling limits, and partial arrangements remain unverified by height arithmetic. A reduced case height does not automatically permit more layers of the actual product. Preserve the package revision and the review status beside the calculated alternatives.
Case-height revision record
Base 1200 by 800 by 144 mm; footprint 400 by 300; Uniform TI 8; zero spacing; horizontal rotation allowed. Total height 1500. Compare packed vertical heights 270 and 272. Returned HI 5 and 4; capacities 40 and 32; loaded heights 1494 and 1232. Bare-case fifth-layer threshold 271.2. Mass fields unset. Record package revision, measurement basis, and separately counted height components with the result.
The useful revision check holds the footprint inputs constant and isolates case height. That gives a concrete explanation for the capacity change while preserving the other limits and physical questions that the unchanged TI cannot answer.