CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 100×50×5 vs CF RHS 100×50×5

RHS 100×50×5 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 100×50×5 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). RHS 100×50×5 carries more bending: 42.6 cm³ of plastic modulus against 40.8 cm³, 4.4% more. CF RHS 100×50×5 is the lighter of the two at 10.5 kg/m against 10.8 kg/m, a saving of 2.9% on steel weight. 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 100×50×5
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 100×50×5
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass10.8 kg/m10.5 kg/m+2.9%
Depth100 mm100 mmsame
Width50 mm50 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area13.7 cm²13.4 cm²+2.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)167 cm⁴158 cm⁴+5.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)42.6 cm³40.8 cm³+4.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)33.3 cm³31.6 cm³+5.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)54.3 cm⁴52.5 cm⁴+3.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)25.8 cm³25 cm³+3.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.99 cm1.98 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)135 cm⁴135 cm⁴same

RHS 100×50×5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 100×50×5 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 100×50×5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 100×50×5 has the larger second moment of area: 167 cm⁴ against 158 cm⁴, a difference of 5.7%. 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, the two are equally efficient (3.9 against 3.9 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, RHS 100×50×5 is the stronger section and CF RHS 100×50×5 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

RHS 100×50×5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 42.6 cm³ against 40.8 cm³ - 4.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CF RHS 100×50×5 at 10.5 kg/m, against 10.8 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.9%. 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 RHS 100×50×5 gives 40.8 cm³ of plastic modulus and 158 cm⁴ of inertia against 42.6 cm³ and 167 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 100×50×5, with a second moment of area of 167 cm⁴ against 158 cm⁴ (5.7% 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

RHS 100×50×5 vs RHS 100×75×4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…