CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 160×160×5 vs CF SHS 160×160×5

SHS 160×160×5 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF SHS 160×160×5 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 178 cm³ against 175 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.7%. They weigh essentially the same, 24.1 kg/m and 23.8 kg/m. Both are about 160 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertySHS 160×160×5
SHS Hot-finished
CF SHS 160×160×5
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass24.1 kg/m23.8 kg/m+1.3%
Depth160 mm160 mmsame
Width160 mm160 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area30.7 cm²30.4 cm²+1.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,230 cm⁴1,200 cm⁴+2.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)178 cm³175 cm³+1.7%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)153 cm³150 cm³+2.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,230 cm⁴1,200 cm⁴+2.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)178 cm³175 cm³+1.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.31 cm6.29 cm+0.3%
Torsion constant (It)1,890 cm⁴1,900 cm⁴-0.5%

SHS 160×160×5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF SHS 160×160×5 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF SHS 160×160×5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 160×160×5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,230 cm⁴ against 1,200 cm⁴, a difference of 2.5%. 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 (7.4 against 7.4 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.

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. SHS 160×160×5 has a plastic modulus of 178 cm³ and CF SHS 160×160×5 has 175 cm³, a difference of only 1.7% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: SHS 160×160×5 is 24.1 kg/m and CF SHS 160×160×5 is 23.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF SHS 160×160×5 gives 175 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,200 cm⁴ of inertia against 178 cm³ and 1,230 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

SHS 160×160×5, with a second moment of area of 1,230 cm⁴ against 1,200 cm⁴ (2.5% 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 160×160×5 vs SHS 150×150×6
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…