CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 260×260×7.1 vs CF SHS 250×250×8

SHS 260×260×7.1 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF SHS 250×250×8 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 674 cm³ against 676 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. SHS 260×260×7.1 is the lighter of the two at 56 kg/m against 59.1 kg/m, a saving of 5.2% on steel weight. SHS 260×260×7.1 is deeper, 260 mm against 250 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertySHS 260×260×7.1
SHS Hot-finished
CF SHS 250×250×8
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass56 kg/m59.1 kg/m-5.2%
Depth260 mm250 mm+4.0%
Width260 mm250 mm+4.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area71.3 cm²75.2 cm²-5.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)7,570 cm⁴7,230 cm⁴+4.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)674 cm³676 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)582 cm³578 cm³+0.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)7,570 cm⁴7,230 cm⁴+4.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)674 cm³676 cm³-0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)10.3 cm9.8 cm+5.1%
Torsion constant (It)11,600 cm⁴11,600 cm⁴same

SHS 260×260×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF SHS 250×250×8 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF SHS 250×250×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 260×260×7.1 has the larger second moment of area: 7,570 cm⁴ against 7,230 cm⁴, a difference of 4.7%. 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 260×260×7.1 is the more efficient section: 12.0 against 11.4 cm³ per kg/m, 5.2% 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.

In short, CF SHS 250×250×8 is the stronger section and SHS 260×260×7.1 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 260×260×7.1 has a plastic modulus of 674 cm³ and CF SHS 250×250×8 has 676 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

SHS 260×260×7.1 at 56 kg/m, against 59.1 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.2%. 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: CF SHS 250×250×8 gives 676 cm³ of plastic modulus and 7,230 cm⁴ of inertia against 674 cm³ and 7,570 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

SHS 260×260×7.1, with a second moment of area of 7,570 cm⁴ against 7,230 cm⁴ (4.7% 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 250×250×8 vs CF SHS 250×250×8SHS 260×260×7.1 vs SHS 250×250×8SHS 260×260×7.1 vs SHS 250×250×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…