CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

PFC 100×50×10 vs PFC 100×50

PFC 100×50×10 is a PFC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); PFC 100×50 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 48.9 cm³ against 48.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 10.2 kg/m and 10.2 kg/m. Both are about 100 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyPFC 100×50×10
PFC
PFC 100×50
PFC
Difference
Mass10.2 kg/m10.2 kg/msame
Depth100 mm100 mmsame
Width50 mm50 mmsame
Web thickness5 mm5 mmsame
Flange thickness8.5 mm8.5 mmsame
Area13 cm²13 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)208 cm⁴208 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)48.9 cm³48.9 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)41.5 cm³41.5 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)32.3 cm⁴32.3 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)17.5 cm³17.5 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.58 cm1.58 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)2.53 cm⁴2.53 cm⁴same

PFC 100×50×10 to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005; PFC 100×50 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to PFC 100×50.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PFC 100×50 has the larger second moment of area: 208 cm⁴ against 208 cm⁴, a difference of 0.0%. 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 (4.8 against 4.8 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.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. PFC sections are specified to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005 and PFC to 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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. PFC 100×50×10 has a plastic modulus of 48.9 cm³ and PFC 100×50 has 48.9 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: PFC 100×50×10 is 10.2 kg/m and PFC 100×50 is 10.2 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: PFC 100×50 gives 48.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 208 cm⁴ of inertia against 48.9 cm³ and 208 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005 and Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

PFC 100×50, with a second moment of area of 208 cm⁴ against 208 cm⁴ (0.0% 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

PFC 100×50×10 vs C 4X7.25C 4X7.25 vs PFC 100×50
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…