CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 120×80×7.1 vs CF RHS 120×80×8

RHS 120×80×7.1 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 120×80×8 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 100 cm³ against 102 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 2.0%. RHS 120×80×7.1 is the lighter of the two at 20.3 kg/m against 21.4 kg/m, a saving of 5.1% on steel weight. Both are about 120 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 120×80×7.1
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 120×80×8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass20.3 kg/m21.4 kg/m-5.1%
Depth120 mm120 mmsame
Width80 mm80 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area25.8 cm²27.2 cm²-5.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)482 cm⁴476 cm⁴+1.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)100 cm³102 cm³-2.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)80.3 cm³79.3 cm³+1.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)251 cm⁴252 cm⁴-0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)75.2 cm³76.9 cm³-2.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.12 cm3.04 cm+2.6%
Torsion constant (It)535 cm⁴584 cm⁴-8.4%

RHS 120×80×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 120×80×8 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 120×80×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 120×80×7.1 has the larger second moment of area: 482 cm⁴ against 476 cm⁴, a difference of 1.3%. 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 120×80×7.1 is the more efficient section: 4.9 against 4.8 cm³ per kg/m, 3.4% 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.

In short, CF RHS 120×80×8 is the stronger section and RHS 120×80×7.1 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

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 120×80×7.1 has a plastic modulus of 100 cm³ and CF RHS 120×80×8 has 102 cm³, a difference of only 2.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 120×80×7.1 at 20.3 kg/m, against 21.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.1%. 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 120×80×8 gives 102 cm³ of plastic modulus and 476 cm⁴ of inertia against 100 cm³ and 482 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 120×80×7.1, with a second moment of area of 482 cm⁴ against 476 cm⁴ (1.3% 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 120×60×8.8 vs CF RHS 120×80×8RHS 120×80×7.1 vs RHS 120×80×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…