CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 120×120×7.1 vs SHS 120×120×8

SHS 120×120×7.1 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); SHS 120×120×8 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. SHS 120×120×8 carries more bending: 138 cm³ of plastic modulus against 133 cm³, 3.6% more. SHS 120×120×7.1 is the lighter of the two at 24.7 kg/m against 26.4 kg/m, a saving of 6.4% on steel weight. Both are about 120 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertySHS 120×120×7.1
SHS Hot-finished
SHS 120×120×8
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass24.7 kg/m26.4 kg/m-6.4%
Depth120 mm120 mmsame
Width120 mm120 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area31.5 cm²33.6 cm²-6.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)663 cm⁴677 cm⁴-2.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)133 cm³138 cm³-3.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)110 cm³113 cm³-2.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)663 cm⁴677 cm⁴-2.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)133 cm³138 cm³-3.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.59 cm4.49 cm+2.2%
Torsion constant (It)1,050 cm⁴1,163 cm⁴-9.7%

SHS 120×120×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; SHS 120×120×8 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to SHS 120×120×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 120×120×8 has the larger second moment of area: 677 cm⁴ against 663 cm⁴, a difference of 2.1%. 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, SHS 120×120×7.1 is the more efficient section: 5.4 against 5.2 cm³ per kg/m, 3.0% 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. SHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and SHS 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 6.4% weight.

In short, SHS 120×120×8 is the stronger section and SHS 120×120×7.1 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

SHS 120×120×8 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 138 cm³ against 133 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.

SHS 120×120×7.1 at 24.7 kg/m, against 26.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 6.4%. 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: SHS 120×120×8 gives 138 cm³ of plastic modulus and 677 cm⁴ of inertia against 133 cm³ and 663 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.

SHS 120×120×8, with a second moment of area of 677 cm⁴ against 663 cm⁴ (2.1% 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

SHS 120×120×7.1 vs CF SHS 120×120×8SHS 120×120×8 vs CF SHS 120×120×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…