CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 60×60×5 vs SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5

SHS 60×60×5 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 21.9 cm³ against 21.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 is the lighter of the two at 8.04 kg/m against 8.42 kg/m, a saving of 4.7% on steel weight. SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 is deeper, 63.5 mm against 60 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertySHS 60×60×5
SHS Hot-finished
SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass8.4 kg/m8 kg/m+4.7%
Depth60 mm63.5 mm-5.5%
Width60 mm63.5 mm-5.5%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area10.7 cm²10.1 cm²+5.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)53.3 cm⁴57 cm⁴-6.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)21.9 cm³21.9 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)17.8 cm³18 cm³-1.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)53.3 cm⁴57 cm⁴-6.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)21.9 cm³21.9 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.23 cm2.38 cm-6.3%
Torsion constant (It)86.4 cm⁴95.7 cm⁴-9.7%

SHS 60×60×5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 has the larger second moment of area: 57 cm⁴ against 53.3 cm⁴, a difference of 6.5%. 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 of steel, SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 is the more efficient section: 2.7 against 2.6 cm³ per kg/m, 4.5% 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 4.7% weight.

In short, SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 is the stronger section and SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 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 60×60×5 has a plastic modulus of 21.9 cm³ and SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 has 21.9 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

SHS 63.5×63.5×4.5 at 8.04 kg/m, against 8.42 kg/m for the other - a saving of 4.7%. 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 63.5×63.5×4.5 gives 21.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 57 cm⁴ of inertia against 21.9 cm³ and 53.3 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 63.5×63.5×4.5, with a second moment of area of 57 cm⁴ against 53.3 cm⁴ (6.5% 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 60×60×5 vs CF SHS 60×60×5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…