CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 76.1×2.9 vs CHS 76.1×3

CHS 76.1×2.9 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CHS 76.1×3 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. CHS 76.1×3 carries more bending: 16 cm³ of plastic modulus against 15.5 cm³, 3.1% more. CHS 76.1×2.9 is the lighter of the two at 5.24 kg/m against 5.41 kg/m, a saving of 3.1% on steel weight. Both are about 76 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyCHS 76.1×2.9
CHS Hot-finished
CHS 76.1×3
CHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass5.2 kg/m5.4 kg/m-3.1%
Depth76.1 mm76.1 mmsame
Width76.1 mm76.1 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area6.7 cm²6.9 cm²-3.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)44.7 cm⁴46.1 cm⁴-3.0%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)15.5 cm³16 cm³-3.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)11.8 cm³12.1 cm³-2.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)44.7 cm⁴46.1 cm⁴-3.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)15.5 cm³16 cm³-3.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.59 cm2.59 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)89.5 cm⁴92.2 cm⁴-2.9%

CHS 76.1×2.9 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CHS 76.1×3 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to CHS 76.1×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CHS 76.1×3 has the larger second moment of area: 46.1 cm⁴ against 44.7 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 (3.0 against 3.0 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 Cold-formed 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 3.1% weight.

In short, CHS 76.1×3 is the stronger section and CHS 76.1×2.9 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

CHS 76.1×3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 16 cm³ against 15.5 cm³ - 3.1% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CHS 76.1×2.9 at 5.24 kg/m, against 5.41 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: CHS 76.1×3 gives 16 cm³ of plastic modulus and 46.1 cm⁴ of inertia against 15.5 cm³ and 44.7 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 76.1×3, with a second moment of area of 46.1 cm⁴ against 44.7 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.

Related comparisons

CHS 76.1×2.9 vs CF CHS 76.1×3CHS 76.1×2.9 vs CHS 76.1×3
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…