CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 50×30×3.6 vs CF RHS 50×30×4

RHS 50×30×3.6 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 50×30×4 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 7.94 cm³ against 8.05 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.4%. RHS 50×30×3.6 is the lighter of the two at 4.01 kg/m against 4.2 kg/m, a saving of 4.5% on steel weight. Both are about 50 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 50×30×3.6
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 50×30×4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass4 kg/m4.2 kg/m-4.5%
Depth50 mm50 mmsame
Width30 mm30 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area5.1 cm²5.3 cm²-4.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)15.4 cm⁴15.3 cm⁴+0.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)7.94 cm³8.05 cm³-1.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)6.16 cm³6.1 cm³+1.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)6.67 cm⁴6.69 cm⁴-0.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)5.46 cm³5.58 cm³-2.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.14 cm1.12 cm+1.8%
Torsion constant (It)15.4 cm⁴16.5 cm⁴-6.7%

RHS 50×30×3.6 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 50×30×4 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 50×30×4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 50×30×3.6 has the larger second moment of area: 15.4 cm⁴ against 15.3 cm⁴, a difference of 0.7%. 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 of steel, RHS 50×30×3.6 is the more efficient section: 2.0 against 1.9 cm³ per kg/m, 3.3% 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 50×30×4 is the stronger section and RHS 50×30×3.6 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 50×30×3.6 has a plastic modulus of 7.94 cm³ and CF RHS 50×30×4 has 8.05 cm³, a difference of only 1.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 50×30×3.6 at 4.01 kg/m, against 4.2 kg/m for the other - a saving of 4.5%. 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 50×30×4 gives 8.05 cm³ of plastic modulus and 15.3 cm⁴ of inertia against 7.94 cm³ and 15.4 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 50×30×3.6, with a second moment of area of 15.4 cm⁴ against 15.3 cm⁴ (0.7% 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 50×30×3.6 vs RHS 50×25×4RHS 50×30×3.6 vs RHS 50×30×4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…