CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

PFC 260×90×35 vs PFC 260×90

PFC 260×90×35 is a PFC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); PFC 260×90 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 425 cm³ against 425 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 34.8 kg/m and 34.8 kg/m. Both are about 260 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyPFC 260×90×35
PFC
PFC 260×90
PFC
Difference
Mass34.8 kg/m34.8 kg/msame
Depth260 mm260 mmsame
Width90 mm90 mmsame
Web thickness8 mm8 mmsame
Flange thickness14 mm14 mmsame
Area44.4 cm²44.4 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)4,730 cm⁴4,728 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)425 cm³425 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)364 cm³364 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)353 cm⁴353 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)102 cm³102 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.82 cm2.82 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)20.6 cm⁴20.6 cm⁴same

PFC 260×90×35 to BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 / BS 4-1:2005; PFC 260×90 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to PFC 260×90.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, PFC 260×90×35 has the larger second moment of area: 4,730 cm⁴ against 4,728 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 (12.2 against 12.2 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 260×90×35 has a plastic modulus of 425 cm³ and PFC 260×90 has 425 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: PFC 260×90×35 is 34.8 kg/m and PFC 260×90 is 34.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: PFC 260×90 gives 425 cm³ of plastic modulus and 4,728 cm⁴ of inertia against 425 cm³ and 4,730 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 260×90×35, with a second moment of area of 4,730 cm⁴ against 4,728 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 260×90×35 vs C 10X30PFC 260×90×35 vs MC 10X25C 10X30 vs PFC 260×90
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…