CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 150×100×8.8 vs RHS 150×100×9.5

RHS 150×100×8.8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 150×100×9.5 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 195 cm³ against 192 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.6%. RHS 150×100×8.8 is the lighter of the two at 31.5 kg/m against 33.3 kg/m, a saving of 5.4% on steel weight. Both are about 150 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 150×100×8.8
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 150×100×9.5
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass31.5 kg/m33.3 kg/m-5.4%
Depth150 mm150 mmsame
Width100 mm100 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area40.1 cm²40.8 cm²-1.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,170 cm⁴1,127 cm⁴+3.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)195 cm³192 cm³+1.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)156 cm³150 cm³+4.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)610 cm⁴597 cm⁴+2.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)146 cm³145 cm³+0.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.9 cm3.82 cm+2.1%
Torsion constant (It)1,300 cm⁴1,374 cm⁴-5.4%

RHS 150×100×8.8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 150×100×9.5 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 150×100×9.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 150×100×8.8 has the larger second moment of area: 1,170 cm⁴ against 1,127 cm⁴, a difference of 3.8%. 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 150×100×8.8 is the more efficient section: 6.2 against 5.8 cm³ per kg/m, 7.4% 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. RHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and RHS 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 5.4% weight.

In short, RHS 150×100×8.8 is the stronger section and RHS 150×100×8.8 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 150×100×8.8 has a plastic modulus of 195 cm³ and RHS 150×100×9.5 has 192 cm³, a difference of only 1.6% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 150×100×8.8 at 31.5 kg/m, against 33.3 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.4%. 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: RHS 150×100×9.5 gives 192 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,127 cm⁴ of inertia against 195 cm³ and 1,170 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 150×100×8.8, with a second moment of area of 1,170 cm⁴ against 1,127 cm⁴ (3.8% 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 150×100×8.8 vs CF RHS 150×100×10RHS 160×80×8.8 vs RHS 150×100×9.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…