CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 48.3×2.9 vs CF CHS 48.3×3

CHS 48.3×2.9 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF CHS 48.3×3 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF CHS 48.3×3 carries more bending: 6.17 cm³ of plastic modulus against 5.99 cm³, 2.9% more. CHS 48.3×2.9 is the lighter of the two at 3.25 kg/m against 3.35 kg/m, a saving of 3.0% on steel weight. Both are about 48 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyCHS 48.3×2.9
CHS Hot-finished
CF CHS 48.3×3
CHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass3.3 kg/m3.4 kg/m-3.0%
Depth48.3 mm48.3 mmsame
Width48.3 mm48.3 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area4.1 cm²4.3 cm²-3.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)10.7 cm⁴11 cm⁴-2.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)5.99 cm³6.17 cm³-2.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)4.43 cm³4.55 cm³-2.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)10.7 cm⁴11 cm⁴-2.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)5.99 cm³6.17 cm³-2.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.61 cm1.61 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)21.4 cm⁴22 cm⁴-2.7%

CHS 48.3×2.9 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF CHS 48.3×3 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF CHS 48.3×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF CHS 48.3×3 has the larger second moment of area: 11 cm⁴ against 10.7 cm⁴, a difference of 2.7%. 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 (1.8 against 1.8 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 48.3×3 is the stronger section and CHS 48.3×2.9 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 48.3×3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 6.17 cm³ against 5.99 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.

CHS 48.3×2.9 at 3.25 kg/m, against 3.35 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.0%. 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 48.3×3 gives 6.17 cm³ of plastic modulus and 11 cm⁴ of inertia against 5.99 cm³ and 10.7 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF CHS 48.3×3, with a second moment of area of 11 cm⁴ against 10.7 cm⁴ (2.7% 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 48.3×2.9 vs CHS 48.3×3CHS 48.3×3.2 vs CF CHS 48.3×3
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…