CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

PFC 180×90×26 vs MC 7X19.1

PFC 180×90×26 is an PFC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); MC 7X19.1 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. MC 7X19.1 carries more bending: 237.61 cm³ of plastic modulus against 232 cm³, 2.4% more. PFC 180×90×26 is the lighter of the two at 26.1 kg/m against 28.4 kg/m, a saving of 8.1% on steel weight. Both are about 179 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyPFC 180×90×26
PFC
MC 7X19.1
MC
Difference
Mass26.1 kg/m28.4 kg/m-8.1%
Depth180 mm177.8 mm+1.2%
Width90 mm87.6 mm+2.7%
Web thickness6.5 mm8.9 mm-27.0%
Flange thickness12.5 mm12.7 mm-1.6%
Area33.2 cm²36.2 cm²-8.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,820 cm⁴1,794 cm⁴+1.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)232 cm³237.61 cm³-2.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)202 cm³201.56 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)277 cm⁴252.2 cm⁴+9.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)83.5 cm³79.477 cm³+5.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.89 cm2.64 cm+9.5%
Torsion constant (It)13.3 cm⁴16.94 cm⁴-21.5%

PFC 180×90×26 to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005; MC 7X19.1 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to MC 7X19.1.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PFC 180×90×26 has the larger second moment of area: 1,820 cm⁴ against 1,794 cm⁴, a difference of 1.4%. 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, PFC 180×90×26 is the more efficient section: 8.9 against 8.4 cm³ per kg/m, 6.2% 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. PFC sections are specified to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005 and MC 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 8.1% weight.

In short, MC 7X19.1 is the stronger section and PFC 180×90×26 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

MC 7X19.1 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 237.61 cm³ against 232 cm³ - 2.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

PFC 180×90×26 at 26.1 kg/m, against 28.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 8.1%. 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: MC 7X19.1 gives 237.61 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,794 cm⁴ of inertia against 232 cm³ and 1,820 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005 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.

PFC 180×90×26, with a second moment of area of 1,820 cm⁴ against 1,794 cm⁴ (1.4% 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 180×90×26 vs PFC 180×90
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…