CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 160×160×5 vs SHS 150×150×6

SHS 160×160×5 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); SHS 150×150×6 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 178 cm³ against 180 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.1%. SHS 160×160×5 is the lighter of the two at 24.1 kg/m against 26.4 kg/m, a saving of 8.7% on steel weight. SHS 160×160×5 is deeper, 160 mm against 150 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertySHS 160×160×5
SHS Hot-finished
SHS 150×150×6
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass24.1 kg/m26.4 kg/m-8.7%
Depth160 mm150 mm+6.7%
Width160 mm150 mm+6.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area30.7 cm²33.6 cm²-8.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,230 cm⁴1,146 cm⁴+7.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)178 cm³180 cm³-1.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)153 cm³153 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,230 cm⁴1,146 cm⁴+7.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)178 cm³180 cm³-1.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.31 cm5.84 cm+8.0%
Torsion constant (It)1,890 cm⁴1,833 cm⁴+3.1%

SHS 160×160×5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; SHS 150×150×6 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to SHS 150×150×6.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 160×160×5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,230 cm⁴ against 1,146 cm⁴, a difference of 7.3%. 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 160×160×5 is the more efficient section: 7.4 against 6.8 cm³ per kg/m, 8.3% 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 8.7% weight.

In short, SHS 150×150×6 is the stronger section and SHS 160×160×5 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 160×160×5 has a plastic modulus of 178 cm³ and SHS 150×150×6 has 180 cm³, a difference of only 1.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

SHS 160×160×5 at 24.1 kg/m, against 26.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 8.7%. 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 150×150×6 gives 180 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,146 cm⁴ of inertia against 178 cm³ and 1,230 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 160×160×5, with a second moment of area of 1,230 cm⁴ against 1,146 cm⁴ (7.3% 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 140×140×7.1 vs SHS 150×150×6SHS 160×160×5 vs CF SHS 160×160×5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…