CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

C 10X30 vs PFC 260×90

C 10X30 is an C section from the American AISC Shapes Database; PFC 260×90 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. C 10X30 carries more bending: 437.53 cm³ of plastic modulus against 425 cm³, 2.9% more. PFC 260×90 is the lighter of the two at 34.8 kg/m against 44.6 kg/m, a saving of 28.2% on steel weight. PFC 260×90 is deeper, 260 mm against 254 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyC 10X30
C
PFC 260×90
PFC
Difference
Mass44.6 kg/m34.8 kg/m+28.2%
Depth254 mm260 mm-2.3%
Width77 mm90 mm-14.4%
Web thickness17.1 mm8 mm+113.8%
Flange thickness11.1 mm14 mm-20.7%
Area56.8 cm²44.4 cm²+27.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)4,287 cm⁴4,728 cm⁴-9.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)437.53 cm³425 cm³+2.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)339.21 cm³364 cm³-6.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)163.6 cm⁴353 cm⁴-53.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)61.943 cm³102 cm³-39.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.7 cm2.82 cm-39.7%
Torsion constant (It)50.78 cm⁴20.6 cm⁴+146.5%

C 10X30 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; PFC 260×90 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to PFC 260×90.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PFC 260×90 has the larger second moment of area: 4,728 cm⁴ against 4,287 cm⁴, a difference of 9.3%. This matters more often than the strength comparison, because on normal floor spans deflection rather than bending capacity sets the beam size - so if the two are close on modulus but apart on inertia, the stiffer one is usually the better answer even when it is not the stronger one.

Measured as bending capacity per kilogram of steel, PFC 260×90 is the more efficient section: 12.2 against 9.8 cm³ per kg/m, 19.7% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: PFC 260×90 has 102 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 61.943 cm³, 39.3% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. C sections are specified to AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and PFC to Continental Steel; the steel grades, tolerances and available lengths differ, connection details and bolt gauges are set out differently, and the two are rarely both stocked in the same market. Check availability before changing a section on a drawing to save 28.2% weight.

In short, C 10X30 is the stronger section and PFC 260×90 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

C 10X30 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 437.53 cm³ against 425 cm³ - 2.9% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

PFC 260×90 at 34.8 kg/m, against 44.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 28.2%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: PFC 260×90 gives 425 cm³ of plastic modulus and 4,728 cm⁴ of inertia against 437.53 cm³ and 4,287 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

PFC 260×90, with a second moment of area of 4,728 cm⁴ against 4,287 cm⁴ (9.3% more). Deflection under a uniform load goes as 5wL⁴/384EI, so it is inversely proportional to I - on a span where the deflection limit governs rather than strength, this is the number that decides the section.

Related comparisons

PFC 260×90×35 vs PFC 260×90PFC 260×90×35 vs C 10X30C 10X30 vs MC 10X25
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…