CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 100×50×3.2 vs RHS 100×60×3

RHS 100×50×3.2 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 100×60×3 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 100×60×3 carries more bending: 29.6 cm³ of plastic modulus against 28.9 cm³, 2.4% more. They weigh essentially the same, 7.13 kg/m and 7.07 kg/m. Both are about 100 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 100×50×3.2
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 100×60×3
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass7.1 kg/m7.1 kg/m+0.8%
Depth100 mm100 mmsame
Width50 mm60 mm-16.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area9.1 cm²9 cm²+0.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)116 cm⁴121 cm⁴-4.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)28.9 cm³29.6 cm³-2.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)23.2 cm³24.1 cm³-3.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)38.8 cm⁴54.6 cm⁴-28.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)17.7 cm³20.8 cm³-14.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.07 cm2.46 cm-15.9%
Torsion constant (It)93.4 cm⁴122 cm⁴-23.4%

RHS 100×50×3.2 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 100×60×3 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 100×60×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 100×60×3 has the larger second moment of area: 121 cm⁴ against 116 cm⁴, a difference of 4.1%. 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, RHS 100×60×3 is the more efficient section: 4.2 against 4.1 cm³ per kg/m, 3.2% 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: RHS 100×60×3 has 20.8 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 17.7 cm³, 14.9% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. RHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and RHS 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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, RHS 100×60×3 is the stronger section and RHS 100×60×3 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

RHS 100×60×3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 29.6 cm³ against 28.9 cm³ - 2.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 100×50×3.2 is 7.13 kg/m and RHS 100×60×3 is 7.07 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 100×60×3 gives 29.6 cm³ of plastic modulus and 121 cm⁴ of inertia against 28.9 cm³ and 116 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.

RHS 100×60×3, with a second moment of area of 121 cm⁴ against 116 cm⁴ (4.1% 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

RHS 100×50×3.2 vs CF RHS 100×60×3RHS 100×60×3 vs CF RHS 100×40×4RHS 100×60×3.2 vs RHS 100×60×3
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…