CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 80×40×3.6 vs RHS 80×50×3

RHS 80×40×3.6 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 80×50×3 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 80×40×3.6 carries more bending: 20 cm³ of plastic modulus against 19.4 cm³, 3.1% more. RHS 80×50×3 is the lighter of the two at 5.81 kg/m against 6.27 kg/m, a saving of 7.9% on steel weight. 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 80×40×3.6
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 80×50×3
RHS
Difference
Mass6.3 kg/m5.8 kg/m+7.9%
Depth80 mm80 mmsame
Width40 mm50 mm-20.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area8 cm²7.3 cm²+8.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)62.8 cm⁴63.1 cm⁴-0.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)20 cm³19.4 cm³+3.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)15.7 cm³15.8 cm³-0.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)20.6 cm⁴30.2 cm⁴-31.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)12.1 cm³13.9 cm³-12.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.61 cm2.03 cm-20.7%
Torsion constant (It)50.8 cm⁴64.8 cm⁴-21.6%

RHS 80×40×3.6 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 80×50×3 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 80×50×3.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 80×50×3 has the larger second moment of area: 63.1 cm⁴ against 62.8 cm⁴, a difference of 0.5%. 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 80×50×3 is the more efficient section: 3.3 against 3.2 cm³ per kg/m, 4.5% 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: RHS 80×50×3 has 13.9 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 12.1 cm³, 12.9% 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 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 7.9% weight.

In short, RHS 80×40×3.6 is the stronger section and RHS 80×50×3 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 80×40×3.6 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 20 cm³ against 19.4 cm³ - 3.1% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 80×50×3 at 5.81 kg/m, against 6.27 kg/m for the other - a saving of 7.9%. 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 80×50×3 gives 19.4 cm³ of plastic modulus and 63.1 cm⁴ of inertia against 20 cm³ and 62.8 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 80×50×3, with a second moment of area of 63.1 cm⁴ against 62.8 cm⁴ (0.5% 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 80×40×3.6 vs CF RHS 80×40×4RHS 80×40×3.6 vs RHS 75×38×4.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…