Why the real section is not the one in the textbook
The textbook draws sections with sharp corners: rectangles placed side by side. The rolling
mill doesn’t — hot steel passing between the rolls does not make right angles, and the
standard fixes the radii of those curves together with the dimensions. Those few millimetres
shift the second moment of area by a few per cent, and the direction depends on where the
curve sits.
The curve adds
I-sections: the root radius fills the corner
Where the web meets the flange there is a root radius r. It fills the re-entrant
corner: it is material the textbook drawing leaves out, and it lies far from the neutral
axis, so it adds more to the second moment of area than to the area.
IPE 160 · r = 9 mm
4 fillets × 17.4 mm² = 69.5 mm² extra
Ix ideal 834.4 → standard 869.3 cm⁴ (+4.2%)
Across all 66 IPE, HEA and HEB sections the sharp-corner value
is below the standard one by between 2.4% and 5.7%: calculating as in
the textbook is on the safe side, but it oversizes.
The curve removes
Hollow sections: the rounded corner takes material away
A cold-formed hollow section is bent, not welded at the corners: the outer corners are
rounded with a radius of 2t — or 2.5t above 6 mm. Here the curve is on the
convex side and removes material exactly where it is furthest from the axis.
SHS 100×100×4 · re = 8, ri = 4 mm
I ideal 236.3 → standard 226.3 cm⁴ (−4.2%)
For hollow sections the sharp-corner value is above the
real one by between 2.1% (100×100×2, thin) and 13.7% (20×20×2, small and
thick): the thicker the wall relative to the side, the more the corners count. Here
calculating as in the textbook is on the unsafe side: you think the section is
stiffer than it really is.
And circular tubes? There is no curve to add or remove: the annulus is already the true
shape, and the textbook formula matches the standard exactly. It is the control case — if
there were a difference there, it would mean the calculation is wrong.
Data checks
Recalculating from the dimensions finds the printed errors
Every value on this page is recalculated from the geometry and compared with the published
tables. For the I-sections the major-axis second moment of area agrees within 0.07% on all
66 sections. Where it does not agree, the problem is in the table:
- Manuale di Meccanica, Table H.6, octagon. It prints (2 + 2√2)/6 · R4;
the correct value is (1 + 2√2)/6 · R4. The difference is 26%.
- HEA 200, minor-axis second moment of area. An Italian section handbook gives
1326 cm⁴; the geometry gives 1335.5, a second source 1335, and the section modulus in the
same table (133.6 cm³) is consistent with 1336. It is a misprint in the third digit.
- Square hollow sections. The same handbook calculates them with sharp corners,
ignoring the EN 10219 radii: it overestimates the second moment of area by 2.1% and up to
13.7% on the small sections.
- Circular tubes. The same handbook has correct areas but second moments of area
that differ by up to 3.7% from the exact formula, which for a circular tube involves no
approximation.
What this calculation is, and what it is not
It is an elastic preliminary sizing: maximum stress against
fyk/γM0. It tells you in thirty seconds whether a section is in the
right size range.
It is not a code check. Above all, instability is
missing: a long IPE beam without lateral restraints buckles sideways (lateral-torsional
buckling) well before it reaches yield, and a column in compression buckles. Load
combinations, deflections, section class, connections and seismic design are also missing.
For a real structure the calculations are signed by a licensed engineer, and this tool is
one of the things they use, not a substitute for them.