CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 88.9×2.9 vs CHS 88.9×3

CHS 88.9×2.9 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CHS 88.9×3 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. CHS 88.9×3 carries more bending: 22.1 cm³ of plastic modulus against 21.5 cm³, 2.7% more. CHS 88.9×2.9 is the lighter of the two at 6.15 kg/m against 6.36 kg/m, a saving of 3.3% on steel weight. Both are about 89 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyCHS 88.9×2.9
CHS Hot-finished
CHS 88.9×3
CHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass6.2 kg/m6.4 kg/m-3.3%
Depth88.9 mm88.9 mmsame
Width88.9 mm88.9 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area7.8 cm²8.1 cm²-3.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)72.5 cm⁴74.8 cm⁴-3.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)21.5 cm³22.1 cm³-2.7%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)16.3 cm³16.8 cm³-3.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)72.5 cm⁴74.8 cm⁴-3.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)21.5 cm³22.1 cm³-2.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.04 cm3.04 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)145 cm⁴150 cm⁴-3.3%

CHS 88.9×2.9 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CHS 88.9×3 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to CHS 88.9×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CHS 88.9×3 has the larger second moment of area: 74.8 cm⁴ against 72.5 cm⁴, a difference of 3.1%. 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 (3.5 against 3.5 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 3.3% weight.

In short, CHS 88.9×3 is the stronger section and CHS 88.9×2.9 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 88.9×3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 22.1 cm³ against 21.5 cm³ - 2.7% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CHS 88.9×2.9 at 6.15 kg/m, against 6.36 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.3%. 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 88.9×3 gives 22.1 cm³ of plastic modulus and 74.8 cm⁴ of inertia against 21.5 cm³ and 72.5 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 88.9×3, with a second moment of area of 74.8 cm⁴ against 72.5 cm⁴ (3.1% 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 88.9×2.9 vs CF CHS 88.9×3CHS 88.9×2.9 vs CHS 88.9×3
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…