CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 200×100×7.1 vs CF RHS 200×100×8

RHS 200×100×7.1 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 200×100×8 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF RHS 200×100×8 carries more bending: 267 cm³ of plastic modulus against 254 cm³, 4.9% more. RHS 200×100×7.1 is the lighter of the two at 31.4 kg/m against 33.9 kg/m, a saving of 7.4% on steel weight. Both are about 200 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 200×100×7.1
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 200×100×8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass31.4 kg/m33.9 kg/m-7.4%
Depth200 mm200 mmsame
Width100 mm100 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area40 cm²43.2 cm²-7.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,020 cm⁴2,090 cm⁴-3.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)254 cm³267 cm³-4.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)202 cm³209 cm³-3.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)674 cm⁴705 cm⁴-4.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)155 cm³165 cm³-6.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.1 cm4.04 cm+1.5%
Torsion constant (It)1,630 cm⁴1,810 cm⁴-9.9%

RHS 200×100×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 200×100×8 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 200×100×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF RHS 200×100×8 has the larger second moment of area: 2,090 cm⁴ against 2,020 cm⁴, a difference of 3.3%. 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 200×100×7.1 is the more efficient section: 8.1 against 7.9 cm³ per kg/m, 2.7% 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 200×100×8 is the stronger section and RHS 200×100×7.1 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

CF RHS 200×100×8 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 267 cm³ against 254 cm³ - 4.9% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 200×100×7.1 at 31.4 kg/m, against 33.9 kg/m for the other - a saving of 7.4%. 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 200×100×8 gives 267 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,090 cm⁴ of inertia against 254 cm³ and 2,020 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF RHS 200×100×8, with a second moment of area of 2,090 cm⁴ against 2,020 cm⁴ (3.3% 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 200×100×7.1 vs RHS 200×100×8RHS 200×120×6.3 vs CF RHS 200×100×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…