CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

C 4X7.25 vs PFC 100×50

C 4X7.25 is an C section from the American AISC Shapes Database; PFC 100×50 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. PFC 100×50 carries more bending: 48.9 cm³ of plastic modulus against 46.539 cm³, 4.8% more. PFC 100×50 is the lighter of the two at 10.2 kg/m against 10.8 kg/m, a saving of 5.9% on steel weight. Both are about 101 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyC 4X7.25
C
PFC 100×50
PFC
Difference
Mass10.8 kg/m10.2 kg/m+5.9%
Depth101.6 mm100 mm+1.6%
Width43.7 mm50 mm-12.6%
Web thickness8.2 mm5 mm+64.0%
Flange thickness7.5 mm8.5 mm-11.8%
Area13.7 cm²13 cm²+5.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)190.6 cm⁴208 cm⁴-8.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)46.539 cm³48.9 cm³-4.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)37.526 cm³41.5 cm³-9.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)17.69 cm⁴32.3 cm⁴-45.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)11.389 cm³17.5 cm³-34.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.14 cm1.58 cm-27.8%
Torsion constant (It)3.4 cm⁴2.53 cm⁴+34.4%

C 4X7.25 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; PFC 100×50 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to PFC 100×50.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PFC 100×50 has the larger second moment of area: 208 cm⁴ against 190.6 cm⁴, a difference of 8.4%. 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 100×50 is the more efficient section: 4.8 against 4.3 cm³ per kg/m, 10.1% 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 100×50 has 17.5 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 11.389 cm³, 34.9% 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 5.9% weight.

In short, PFC 100×50 is the stronger section and PFC 100×50 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

PFC 100×50 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 48.9 cm³ against 46.539 cm³ - 4.8% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

PFC 100×50 at 10.2 kg/m, against 10.8 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.9%. 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 100×50 gives 48.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 208 cm⁴ of inertia against 46.539 cm³ and 190.6 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 100×50, with a second moment of area of 208 cm⁴ against 190.6 cm⁴ (8.4% 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 100×50×10 vs PFC 100×50PFC 100×50×10 vs C 4X7.25
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…