Heavy-Duty Honeycomb Racking for Steel Bars, Pipes, and Angles

Cantilever racks have been the default long-material storage solution in steel service centres for decades. Their open-front geometry allows forklifts and cranes to place bundles on horizontal arms without front uprights obstructing the load. That simplicity is real, and for low-turnover, bulk long stock it remains a practical option. The limitation appears when the inventory becomes more varied, the picking frequency rises, and the floor space stops expanding.

Space Utilisation: The Structural Difference

The cantilever rack transfers load through bending moments at the arm-to-column connection. Each level’s arms project into the aisle, and the forklift requires clearance to approach and withdraw the bundle. A roll-out cantilever system typically needs around 1,400 mm of aisle width, which lowers the proportion of the building footprint available for actual storage. The published comparison places area utilisation at roughly 55% for the roll-out cantilever layout.

A honeycomb rack replaces shared horizontal arms with a vertical grid of independent compartments. The load transfers vertically through the cell structure rather than through cantilever bending moments. Because the compartments are accessed from the face of the grid rather than from projecting arms, the aisle requirement is reduced. The same comparison places honeycomb area utilisation at approximately 90%. In a warehouse where floor area is the binding constraint, that difference translates directly into additional pipe bundles stored within the same building envelope.

Retrieval Effort: The Number That Shows Up in Labour Cost

A cantilever pick requires the operator to guide the lifting device under or around the arms and withdraw the bundle against the friction of the support. Published test data on a roll-out cantilever system measured a pull force of 180 N. A honeycomb system using wheeled carts or low-friction rails measured 22 N for the same task. The force difference is not merely ergonomic; it affects cycle time. The same source reports average retrieval time dropping from roughly 20 minutes per pull on a cantilever system to about 3 minutes on a honeycomb system.

For an operation averaging ten pulls per day, that difference accumulates into hours of crane or operator time each week. It also changes the safety profile: a bundle that requires 180 N to move is more likely to shift suddenly when it releases than one that moves at 22 N.

Vertical Utilisation and the Mezzanine Option

Cantilever systems often cap vertical utilisation because the arm spacing is fixed to the heaviest or tallest item, leaving air space above lighter stock unused. One comparison reports cantilever vertical utilisation at around 45%, against approximately 89% for a multi-tier honeycomb arrangement. The honeycomb grid can be extended upward in additional levels, and Herochu’s design allows the top level to serve as a base for a mezzanine, converting unused overhead volume into secondary storage or workspace.

That said, vertical expansion is only useful when the lifting equipment can reach the upper levels safely. A mezzanine added to a honeycomb rack changes the access method for the top tier, and the crane or forklift envelope must be checked before the configuration is fixed.

Where Cantilever Still Wins

A cantilever rack remains a reasonable choice when the material is bulky, the turnover is low, and the loading is predictable. Its structural logic is simple, installation is straightforward, and it tolerates irregular shapes that may not fit cleanly into a compartment. The honeycomb format performs best when the inventory can be separated into defined diameter or profile bands and when frequent access to individual bundles is required. A mixed operation may use both: cantilever for slow-moving bulk stock and honeycomb for the fast-moving, high-SKU portion of the inventory.

Herochu’s HC-series applies the honeycomb logic to steel bars, pipes, and angles with per-level ratings of 2,000 kg to 3,000 kg and customisable bay counts from 24 to 36. The performance argument is not that cantilever is obsolete. It is that the honeycomb format changes the space-and-access equation in a measurable way, and those measurements should be part of the purchase decision.