CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 120×80×6.3 vs RHS 125×75×6.4

RHS 120×80×6.3 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 125×75×6.4 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 120×80×6.3 carries more bending: 91 cm³ of plastic modulus against 88.5 cm³, 2.8% more. They weigh essentially the same, 18.2 kg/m and 18.2 kg/m. RHS 125×75×6.4 is deeper, 125 mm against 120 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 120×80×6.3
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 125×75×6.4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass18.2 kg/m18.2 kg/msame
Depth120 mm125 mm-4.0%
Width80 mm75 mm+6.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area23.2 cm²22.6 cm²+2.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)440 cm⁴435 cm⁴+1.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)91 cm³88.5 cm³+2.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)73.3 cm³69.6 cm³+5.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)230 cm⁴196 cm⁴+17.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)68.2 cm³62.1 cm³+9.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.15 cm2.94 cm+7.1%
Torsion constant (It)487 cm⁴467 cm⁴+4.3%

RHS 120×80×6.3 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 125×75×6.4 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 125×75×6.4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 120×80×6.3 has the larger second moment of area: 440 cm⁴ against 435 cm⁴, a difference of 1.1%. 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 120×80×6.3 is the more efficient section: 5.0 against 4.9 cm³ per kg/m, 2.8% 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 120×80×6.3 has 68.2 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 62.1 cm³, 9.8% 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 120×80×6.3 is the stronger section and RHS 125×75×6.4 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 120×80×6.3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 91 cm³ against 88.5 cm³ - 2.8% 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 120×80×6.3 is 18.2 kg/m and RHS 125×75×6.4 is 18.2 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 125×75×6.4 gives 88.5 cm³ of plastic modulus and 435 cm⁴ of inertia against 91 cm³ and 440 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 120×80×6.3, with a second moment of area of 440 cm⁴ against 435 cm⁴ (1.1% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…