CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 160×160×8 vs CF SHS 160×160×8

SHS 160×160×8 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF SHS 160×160×8 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). SHS 160×160×8 carries more bending: 272 cm³ of plastic modulus against 260 cm³, 4.6% more. CF SHS 160×160×8 is the lighter of the two at 36.5 kg/m against 37.6 kg/m, a saving of 3.0% on steel weight. 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 160×160×8
SHS Hot-finished
CF SHS 160×160×8
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass37.6 kg/m36.5 kg/m+3.0%
Depth160 mm160 mmsame
Width160 mm160 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area48 cm²46.4 cm²+3.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,830 cm⁴1,740 cm⁴+5.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)272 cm³260 cm³+4.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)229 cm³218 cm³+5.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,830 cm⁴1,740 cm⁴+5.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)272 cm³260 cm³+4.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.18 cm6.12 cm+1.0%
Torsion constant (It)2,880 cm⁴2,900 cm⁴-0.7%

SHS 160×160×8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF SHS 160×160×8 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF SHS 160×160×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 160×160×8 has the larger second moment of area: 1,830 cm⁴ against 1,740 cm⁴, a difference of 5.2%. 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 (7.2 against 7.1 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, SHS 160×160×8 is the stronger section and CF SHS 160×160×8 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

SHS 160×160×8 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 272 cm³ against 260 cm³ - 4.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CF SHS 160×160×8 at 36.5 kg/m, against 37.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.0%. 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: CF SHS 160×160×8 gives 260 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,740 cm⁴ of inertia against 272 cm³ and 1,830 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

SHS 160×160×8, with a second moment of area of 1,830 cm⁴ against 1,740 cm⁴ (5.2% 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

SHS 160×160×7.1 vs CF SHS 160×160×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…