CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 60×40×3.6 vs CF RHS 60×40×4

RHS 60×40×3.6 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 60×40×4 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF RHS 60×40×4 carries more bending: 13.2 cm³ of plastic modulus against 12.7 cm³, 3.8% more. RHS 60×40×3.6 is the lighter of the two at 5.14 kg/m against 5.45 kg/m, a saving of 5.7% on steel weight. Both are about 60 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 60×40×3.6
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 60×40×4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass5.1 kg/m5.5 kg/m-5.7%
Depth60 mm60 mmsame
Width40 mm40 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area6.5 cm²7 cm²-5.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)30.4 cm⁴31 cm⁴-1.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)12.7 cm³13.2 cm³-3.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)10.1 cm³10.3 cm³-1.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)15.9 cm⁴16.3 cm⁴-2.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)9.5 cm³9.89 cm³-3.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.56 cm1.53 cm+2.0%
Torsion constant (It)33.8 cm⁴36.7 cm⁴-7.9%

RHS 60×40×3.6 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 60×40×4 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 60×40×4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF RHS 60×40×4 has the larger second moment of area: 31 cm⁴ against 30.4 cm⁴, a difference of 1.9%. 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 60×40×3.6 is the more efficient section: 2.5 against 2.4 cm³ per kg/m, 2.0% 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.

In short, CF RHS 60×40×4 is the stronger section and RHS 60×40×3.6 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

CF RHS 60×40×4 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 13.2 cm³ against 12.7 cm³ - 3.8% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 60×40×3.6 at 5.14 kg/m, against 5.45 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.7%. 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 60×40×4 gives 13.2 cm³ of plastic modulus and 31 cm⁴ of inertia against 12.7 cm³ and 30.4 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF RHS 60×40×4, with a second moment of area of 31 cm⁴ against 30.4 cm⁴ (1.9% 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 60×40×3.6 vs RHS 60×40×4RHS 60×40×4 vs CF RHS 60×40×4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…