CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 139.7×12.5 vs CHS 139.7×12

CHS 139.7×12.5 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CHS 139.7×12 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. CHS 139.7×12.5 carries more bending: 203 cm³ of plastic modulus against 196 cm³, 3.6% more. CHS 139.7×12 is the lighter of the two at 37.79 kg/m against 39.2 kg/m, a saving of 3.7% on steel weight. Both are about 140 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyCHS 139.7×12.5
CHS Hot-finished
CHS 139.7×12
CHS
Difference
Mass39.2 kg/m37.8 kg/m+3.7%
Depth139.7 mm139.7 mmsame
Width139.7 mm139.7 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area50 cm²48.1 cm²+4.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,020 cm⁴990 cm⁴+3.0%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)203 cm³196 cm³+3.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)146 cm³142 cm³+2.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,020 cm⁴990 cm⁴+3.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)203 cm³196 cm³+3.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.52 cm4.53 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)2,040 cm⁴1,980 cm⁴+3.0%

CHS 139.7×12.5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CHS 139.7×12 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to CHS 139.7×12.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CHS 139.7×12.5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,020 cm⁴ against 990 cm⁴, a difference of 3.0%. 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, the two are equally efficient (5.2 against 5.2 cm³ per kg/m), so on a pure steel-tonnage basis there is nothing to choose between them. The decision comes down to availability, connection detailing and what the rest of the frame uses.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. CHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and CHS to EN 10219 · 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 3.7% weight.

In short, CHS 139.7×12.5 is the stronger section and CHS 139.7×12 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

CHS 139.7×12.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 203 cm³ against 196 cm³ - 3.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CHS 139.7×12 at 37.79 kg/m, against 39.2 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.7%. 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: CHS 139.7×12 gives 196 cm³ of plastic modulus and 990 cm⁴ of inertia against 203 cm³ and 1,020 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10210-2:2006 and EN 10219 · Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

CHS 139.7×12.5, with a second moment of area of 1,020 cm⁴ against 990 cm⁴ (3.0% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…