CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 80×80×3.2 vs CF SHS 80×80×3.5

SHS 80×80×3.2 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF SHS 80×80×3.5 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF SHS 80×80×3.5 carries more bending: 29.5 cm³ of plastic modulus against 27.9 cm³, 5.4% more. SHS 80×80×3.2 is the lighter of the two at 7.63 kg/m against 8.16 kg/m, a saving of 6.5% on steel weight. Both are about 80 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertySHS 80×80×3.2
SHS Hot-finished
CF SHS 80×80×3.5
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass7.6 kg/m8.2 kg/m-6.5%
Depth80 mm80 mmsame
Width80 mm80 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area9.7 cm²10.4 cm²-6.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)95 cm⁴99.8 cm⁴-4.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)27.9 cm³29.5 cm³-5.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)23.7 cm³25 cm³-5.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)95 cm⁴99.8 cm⁴-4.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)27.9 cm³29.5 cm³-5.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.13 cm3.1 cm+1.0%
Torsion constant (It)148 cm⁴161 cm⁴-8.1%

SHS 80×80×3.2 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF SHS 80×80×3.5 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF SHS 80×80×3.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF SHS 80×80×3.5 has the larger second moment of area: 99.8 cm⁴ against 95 cm⁴, a difference of 4.8%. 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 (3.7 against 3.6 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, CF SHS 80×80×3.5 is the stronger section and SHS 80×80×3.2 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

CF SHS 80×80×3.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 29.5 cm³ against 27.9 cm³ - 5.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

SHS 80×80×3.2 at 7.63 kg/m, against 8.16 kg/m for the other - a saving of 6.5%. 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 80×80×3.5 gives 29.5 cm³ of plastic modulus and 99.8 cm⁴ of inertia against 27.9 cm³ and 95 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF SHS 80×80×3.5, with a second moment of area of 99.8 cm⁴ against 95 cm⁴ (4.8% 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 80×80×3.2 vs SHS 80×80×3SHS 80×80×3.6 vs CF SHS 80×80×3.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…