CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 100×100×8 vs SHS 100×100×9

SHS 100×100×8 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); SHS 100×100×9 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 98.2 cm³ against 98.6 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. SHS 100×100×8 is the lighter of the two at 22.6 kg/m against 24.1 kg/m, a saving of 6.2% on steel weight. 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.
PropertySHS 100×100×8
SHS Hot-finished
SHS 100×100×9
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass22.6 kg/m24.1 kg/m-6.2%
Depth100 mm100 mmsame
Width100 mm100 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area28.8 cm²30 cm²-4.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)400 cm⁴391 cm⁴+2.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)98.2 cm³98.6 cm³-0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)79.9 cm³78.1 cm³+2.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)400 cm⁴391 cm⁴+2.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)98.2 cm³98.6 cm³-0.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.73 cm3.61 cm+3.3%
Torsion constant (It)646 cm⁴700 cm⁴-7.7%

SHS 100×100×8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; SHS 100×100×9 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to SHS 100×100×9.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 100×100×8 has the larger second moment of area: 400 cm⁴ against 391 cm⁴, a difference of 2.3%. 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, SHS 100×100×8 is the more efficient section: 4.3 against 4.1 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. SHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and SHS Cold-formed to EN 10219 · 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 6.2% weight.

In short, SHS 100×100×9 is the stronger section and SHS 100×100×8 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. SHS 100×100×8 has a plastic modulus of 98.2 cm³ and SHS 100×100×9 has 98.6 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

SHS 100×100×8 at 22.6 kg/m, against 24.1 kg/m for the other - a saving of 6.2%. 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: SHS 100×100×9 gives 98.6 cm³ of plastic modulus and 391 cm⁴ of inertia against 98.2 cm³ and 400 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10210-2:2006 and EN 10219 · Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

SHS 100×100×8, with a second moment of area of 400 cm⁴ against 391 cm⁴ (2.3% 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

SHS 100×100×7.1 vs SHS 100×100×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…