CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 220×120×8 vs RHS 200×100×12.7

RHS 220×120×8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 200×100×12.7 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 362 cm³ against 363 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. RHS 220×120×8 is the lighter of the two at 40.2 kg/m against 52.4 kg/m, a saving of 23.3% on steel weight. RHS 220×120×8 is deeper, 220 mm against 200 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 220×120×8
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 200×100×12.7
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass40.2 kg/m52.4 kg/m-23.3%
Depth220 mm200 mm+10.0%
Width120 mm100 mm+20.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area51.2 cm²62.8 cm²-18.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,200 cm⁴2,679 cm⁴+19.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)362 cm³363 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)291 cm³268 cm³+8.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,230 cm⁴898 cm⁴+37.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)236 cm³223 cm³+5.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.9 cm3.78 cm+29.6%
Torsion constant (It)2,850 cm⁴2,496 cm⁴+14.2%

RHS 220×120×8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 200×100×12.7 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 200×100×12.7.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 220×120×8 has the larger second moment of area: 3,200 cm⁴ against 2,679 cm⁴, a difference of 19.4%. 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 220×120×8 is the more efficient section: 9.0 against 6.9 cm³ per kg/m, 30.0% 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.

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 23.3% weight.

In short, RHS 200×100×12.7 is the stronger section and RHS 220×120×8 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 220×120×8 has a plastic modulus of 362 cm³ and RHS 200×100×12.7 has 363 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 220×120×8 at 40.2 kg/m, against 52.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 23.3%. 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: RHS 200×100×12.7 gives 363 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,679 cm⁴ of inertia against 362 cm³ and 3,200 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 220×120×8, with a second moment of area of 3,200 cm⁴ against 2,679 cm⁴ (19.4% 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 200×150×8 vs RHS 200×100×12.7
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…