CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 60.3×2.9 vs CF CHS 60.3×3

CHS 60.3×2.9 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF CHS 60.3×3 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF CHS 60.3×3 carries more bending: 9.86 cm³ of plastic modulus against 9.56 cm³, 3.0% more. CHS 60.3×2.9 is the lighter of the two at 4.11 kg/m against 4.24 kg/m, a saving of 3.1% on steel weight. Both are about 60 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyCHS 60.3×2.9
CHS Hot-finished
CF CHS 60.3×3
CHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass4.1 kg/m4.2 kg/m-3.1%
Depth60.3 mm60.3 mmsame
Width60.3 mm60.3 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area5.2 cm²5.4 cm²-3.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)21.6 cm⁴22.2 cm⁴-2.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)9.56 cm³9.86 cm³-3.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)7.16 cm³7.37 cm³-2.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)21.6 cm⁴22.2 cm⁴-2.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)9.56 cm³9.86 cm³-3.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.03 cm2.03 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)43.2 cm⁴44.4 cm⁴-2.7%

CHS 60.3×2.9 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF CHS 60.3×3 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF CHS 60.3×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF CHS 60.3×3 has the larger second moment of area: 22.2 cm⁴ against 21.6 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 (2.3 against 2.3 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, CF CHS 60.3×3 is the stronger section and CHS 60.3×2.9 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 60.3×3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 9.86 cm³ against 9.56 cm³ - 3.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CHS 60.3×2.9 at 4.11 kg/m, against 4.24 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.1%. 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 60.3×3 gives 9.86 cm³ of plastic modulus and 22.2 cm⁴ of inertia against 9.56 cm³ and 21.6 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF CHS 60.3×3, with a second moment of area of 22.2 cm⁴ against 21.6 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 60.3×2.9 vs CHS 60.3×3CHS 60.3×2.9 vs CHS 60.3×3CHS 60.3×3.2 vs CF CHS 60.3×3
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…