CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 139.7×5.6 vs CF CHS 139.7×6

CHS 139.7×5.6 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF CHS 139.7×6 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF CHS 139.7×6 carries more bending: 107 cm³ of plastic modulus against 101 cm³, 5.6% more. CHS 139.7×5.6 is the lighter of the two at 18.5 kg/m against 19.8 kg/m, a saving of 6.6% 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 139.7×5.6
CHS Hot-finished
CF CHS 139.7×6
CHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass18.5 kg/m19.8 kg/m-6.6%
Depth139.7 mm139.7 mmsame
Width139.7 mm139.7 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area23.6 cm²25.2 cm²-6.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)531 cm⁴564 cm⁴-5.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)101 cm³107 cm³-5.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)76.1 cm³80.8 cm³-5.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)531 cm⁴564 cm⁴-5.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)101 cm³107 cm³-5.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.75 cm4.73 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)1,060 cm⁴1,130 cm⁴-6.2%

CHS 139.7×5.6 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF CHS 139.7×6 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF CHS 139.7×6.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF CHS 139.7×6 has the larger second moment of area: 564 cm⁴ against 531 cm⁴, a difference of 5.9%. 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 (5.5 against 5.4 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.

In short, CF CHS 139.7×6 is the stronger section and CHS 139.7×5.6 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

CF CHS 139.7×6 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 107 cm³ against 101 cm³ - 5.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CHS 139.7×5.6 at 18.5 kg/m, against 19.8 kg/m for the other - a saving of 6.6%. 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: CF CHS 139.7×6 gives 107 cm³ of plastic modulus and 564 cm⁴ of inertia against 101 cm³ and 531 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF CHS 139.7×6, with a second moment of area of 564 cm⁴ against 531 cm⁴ (5.9% 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

CHS 139.7×5.6 vs CHS 139.7×6
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…