Case size optimizer
Your case dimensions were chosen once and are paid for on every pallet since. This sweeps the sizes you could order and shows what the best one is worth, in percentage points of pallet cube.
Best cases in your range
Best case in range gains 7.2 percentage points of cube utilisation over yours.
| Case L × W × H | Per layer | Layers | Per pallet | Cube | Δ points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 400 × 300 × 250 (yours) | 8 | 6 | 48 | 90.6 % | — |
| 400 × 300 × 270 | 8 | 6 | 48 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 300 × 180 | 8 | 9 | 72 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 240 × 270 | 10 | 6 | 60 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 200 × 270 | 12 | 6 | 72 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 400 × 270 | 6 | 6 | 36 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 240 × 180 | 10 | 9 | 90 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 200 × 180 | 12 | 9 | 108 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
| 400 × 400 × 180 | 6 | 9 | 54 | 97.8 % | +7.2 |
Geometry only, and the ranking assumes every size in your range physically suits the product — that judgement is yours. Candidate mass is scaled from your current case density. Tooling, artwork, retail-shelf fit, board grade and case-count-per-case are real costs and are NOT modelled. Treat the output as a shortlist to evaluate, never as a purchase decision.
Why this is the expensive decision
A pallet pattern is a consequence, not a choice. By the time a carton spec is signed off, the cases per layer, the layer count and the air you ship are all already determined — and they repeat on every pallet, in every truck, for the life of the SKU.
The arithmetic is unforgiving in a useful way: layer count is a floor division of usable height by case height, so a case a few millimetres too tall throws away an entire layer, and a case slightly too short leaves a band of paid-for air under the stretch wrap. Neither shows up on a spec sheet.
The sweep evaluates every size on your grid with a count-only packing routine that agrees exactly with the full layer solver, then ranks by cube utilisation and breaks ties toward the least disruptive change — so the top row is usually a carton you could order tomorrow, not a redesign.
Questions
Why rank by cube utilisation instead of cases per pallet?
Because ranking by cases per pallet rewards shrinking the box, which ships less product per pallet — the opposite of what you want. Cube utilisation measures how much of the usable pallet volume your cases actually occupy, so a higher figure means more product per pallet, per truck and per shipment.
How can a 20 mm change matter?
Because layer count is a floor division. A case 250 mm tall gives six layers under a 1,656 mm usable height and leaves 156 mm of paid-for air; at 270 mm the same six layers fill 1,620 mm. Nothing else changed, and the pallet carries meaningfully more product.
Does it know whether my product fits the new case?
No, and it does not pretend to. You set the dimension range, which is where product fit, count-per-case and shelf constraints belong. Inside that range the tool ranks geometry — the shortlist is yours to evaluate.
What about tooling and artwork costs?
Not modelled, deliberately. A case change carries die, plate, artwork and qualification costs that only you can price. This tool tells you the size of the prize; whether it clears your changeover cost is a separate calculation.
How many sizes does it actually try?
Every combination on your grid — typically several thousand — using a count-only packing routine that agrees exactly with the full layer solver. The sweep runs in your browser in milliseconds, and no dimension you type is ever transmitted.
Worth a bench review
If the sweep shows several points of cube sitting on the table, the next questions are whether your product tolerates the change, what the tooling costs, and whether a mixed-SKU line can hold the new pattern. Twenty minutes, no slides — bring the CSV.