CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

CHS 88.9×5 vs PIPE 3STD

CHS 88.9×5 is an CHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); PIPE 3STD is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 35.2 cm³ against 35.888 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.9%. CHS 88.9×5 is the lighter of the two at 10.3 kg/m against 11.3 kg/m, a saving of 8.8% 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 88.9×5
CHS Hot-finished
PIPE 3STD
Pipe
Difference
Mass10.3 kg/m11.3 kg/m-8.8%
Depth88.9 mm88.9 mmsame
Width88.9 mm88.9 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm5.1 mm-100.0%
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area13.2 cm²13.4 cm²-1.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)116 cm⁴118.6 cm⁴-2.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)35.2 cm³35.888 cm³-1.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)26.2 cm³26.711 cm³-1.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)116 cm⁴118.6 cm⁴-2.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)35.2 cm³35.888 cm³-1.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.97 cm2.97 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)233 cm⁴236.8 cm⁴-1.6%

CHS 88.9×5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; PIPE 3STD to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to PIPE 3STD.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PIPE 3STD has the larger second moment of area: 118.6 cm⁴ against 116 cm⁴, a difference of 2.2%. 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 of steel, CHS 88.9×5 is the more efficient section: 3.4 against 3.2 cm³ per kg/m, 7.6% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

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 Pipe to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; 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 8.8% weight.

In short, PIPE 3STD is the stronger section and CHS 88.9×5 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

They are effectively equal in bending. CHS 88.9×5 has a plastic modulus of 35.2 cm³ and PIPE 3STD has 35.888 cm³, a difference of only 1.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

CHS 88.9×5 at 10.3 kg/m, against 11.3 kg/m for the other - a saving of 8.8%. 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: PIPE 3STD gives 35.888 cm³ of plastic modulus and 118.6 cm⁴ of inertia against 35.2 cm³ and 116 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10210-2:2006 and AISC Shapes Database v16.0), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

PIPE 3STD, with a second moment of area of 118.6 cm⁴ against 116 cm⁴ (2.2% 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 88.9×5 vs CF CHS 88.9×5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…