CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 200×120×7.1 vs RHS 200×150×6.3

RHS 200×120×7.1 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 200×150×6.3 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 281 cm³ against 280 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 33.7 kg/m and 33.3 kg/m. 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 200×120×7.1
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 200×150×6.3
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass33.7 kg/m33.3 kg/m+1.2%
Depth200 mm200 mmsame
Width120 mm150 mm-20.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area42.9 cm²41.1 cm²+4.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,290 cm⁴2,330 cm⁴-1.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)281 cm³280 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)229 cm³233 cm³-1.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,030 cm⁴1,499 cm⁴-31.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)197 cm³230 cm³-14.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.89 cm6.04 cm-19.0%
Torsion constant (It)2,250 cm⁴2,965 cm⁴-24.1%

RHS 200×120×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 200×150×6.3 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 200×150×6.3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 200×150×6.3 has the larger second moment of area: 2,330 cm⁴ against 2,290 cm⁴, a difference of 1.7%. 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 (8.3 against 8.4 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: RHS 200×150×6.3 has 230 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 197 cm³, 14.3% 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, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 200×120×7.1 has a plastic modulus of 281 cm³ and RHS 200×150×6.3 has 280 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 200×120×7.1 is 33.7 kg/m and RHS 200×150×6.3 is 33.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 200×150×6.3 gives 280 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,330 cm⁴ of inertia against 281 cm³ and 2,290 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 200×150×6.3, with a second moment of area of 2,330 cm⁴ against 2,290 cm⁴ (1.7% 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 200×100×8 vs RHS 200×150×6.3RHS 200×100×8.8 vs RHS 200×150×6.3RHS 200×120×7.1 vs CF RHS 200×150×6RHS 200×120×7.1 vs RHS 200×100×8RHS 200×150×6.3 vs CF RHS 200×120×8RHS 200×150×6.3 vs RHS 200×100×9
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…