CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 168.3×12.5 vs CF CHS 168.3×12.5

CHS 168.3×12.5 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF CHS 168.3×12.5 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 304 cm³ against 304 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 48 kg/m and 48 kg/m. Both are about 168 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyCHS 168.3×12.5
CHS Hot-finished
CF CHS 168.3×12.5
CHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass48 kg/m48 kg/msame
Depth168.3 mm168.3 mmsame
Width168.3 mm168.3 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area61.2 cm²61.2 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)1,870 cm⁴1,870 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)304 cm³304 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)222 cm³222 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,870 cm⁴1,870 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)304 cm³304 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.53 cm5.53 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)3,740 cm⁴3,740 cm⁴same

CHS 168.3×12.5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF CHS 168.3×12.5 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF CHS 168.3×12.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF CHS 168.3×12.5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,870 cm⁴ against 1,870 cm⁴, a difference of 0.0%. 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 (6.3 against 6.3 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, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. CHS 168.3×12.5 has a plastic modulus of 304 cm³ and CF CHS 168.3×12.5 has 304 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: CHS 168.3×12.5 is 48 kg/m and CF CHS 168.3×12.5 is 48 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF CHS 168.3×12.5 gives 304 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,870 cm⁴ of inertia against 304 cm³ and 1,870 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF CHS 168.3×12.5, with a second moment of area of 1,870 cm⁴ against 1,870 cm⁴ (0.0% 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…