CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

PFC 180×90×26 vs PFC 180×90

PFC 180×90×26 is a PFC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); PFC 180×90 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 232 cm³ against 232 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 26.1 kg/m and 26.1 kg/m. Both are about 180 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
PFC 180×90
PFC
Difference
Mass26.1 kg/m26.1 kg/msame
Depth180 mm180 mmsame
Width90 mm90 mmsame
Web thickness6.5 mm6.5 mmsame
Flange thickness12.5 mm12.5 mmsame
Area33.2 cm²33.2 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)1,820 cm⁴1,817 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)232 cm³232 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)202 cm³202 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)277 cm⁴277 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)83.5 cm³83.5 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.89 cm2.89 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)13.3 cm⁴13.3 cm⁴same

PFC 180×90×26 to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005; PFC 180×90 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to PFC 180×90.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PFC 180×90×26 has the larger second moment of area: 1,820 cm⁴ against 1,817 cm⁴, a difference of 0.2%. 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, the two are equally efficient (8.9 against 8.9 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 180×90×26 has a plastic modulus of 232 cm³ and PFC 180×90 has 232 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: PFC 180×90×26 is 26.1 kg/m and PFC 180×90 is 26.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: PFC 180×90 gives 232 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,817 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 Continental Steel), 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 1,817 cm⁴ (0.2% 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

PFC 180×90×26 vs MC 7X19.1
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…