CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 80×40×3 vs CF RHS 80×40×3

RHS 80×40×3 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 80×40×3 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). RHS 80×40×3 carries more bending: 17.1 cm³ of plastic modulus against 16.5 cm³, 3.6% more. They weigh essentially the same, 5.29 kg/m and 5.19 kg/m. Both are about 80 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 80×40×3
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 80×40×3
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass5.3 kg/m5.2 kg/m+1.9%
Depth80 mm80 mmsame
Width40 mm40 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area6.7 cm²6.6 cm²+2.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)54.2 cm⁴52.3 cm⁴+3.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)17.1 cm³16.5 cm³+3.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)13.6 cm³13.1 cm³+3.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)18 cm⁴17.6 cm⁴+2.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)10.4 cm³10.2 cm³+2.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.63 cm1.63 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)43.8 cm⁴43.9 cm⁴-0.2%

RHS 80×40×3 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 80×40×3 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 80×40×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 80×40×3 has the larger second moment of area: 54.2 cm⁴ against 52.3 cm⁴, a difference of 3.6%. 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 (3.2 against 3.2 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.

In short, RHS 80×40×3 is the stronger section and CF RHS 80×40×3 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

RHS 80×40×3 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 17.1 cm³ against 16.5 cm³ - 3.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 80×40×3 is 5.29 kg/m and CF RHS 80×40×3 is 5.19 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF RHS 80×40×3 gives 16.5 cm³ of plastic modulus and 52.3 cm⁴ of inertia against 17.1 cm³ and 54.2 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 80×40×3, with a second moment of area of 54.2 cm⁴ against 52.3 cm⁴ (3.6% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…