CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 160×80×8.8 vs CF RHS 160×80×10

RHS 160×80×8.8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 160×80×10 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 189 cm³ against 191 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.0%. RHS 160×80×8.8 is the lighter of the two at 30.1 kg/m against 31.8 kg/m, a saving of 5.3% on steel weight. Both are about 160 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 160×80×8.8
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 160×80×10
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass30.1 kg/m31.8 kg/m-5.3%
Depth160 mm160 mmsame
Width80 mm80 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area38.3 cm²40.6 cm²-5.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,170 cm⁴1,150 cm⁴+1.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)189 cm³191 cm³-1.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)147 cm³143 cm³+2.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)379 cm⁴380 cm⁴-0.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)114 cm³117 cm³-2.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.15 cm3.06 cm+2.9%
Torsion constant (It)949 cm⁴1,030 cm⁴-7.9%

RHS 160×80×8.8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 160×80×10 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 160×80×10.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 160×80×8.8 has the larger second moment of area: 1,170 cm⁴ against 1,150 cm⁴, a difference of 1.7%. 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 160×80×8.8 is the more efficient section: 6.3 against 6.0 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.

In short, CF RHS 160×80×10 is the stronger section and RHS 160×80×8.8 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 160×80×8.8 has a plastic modulus of 189 cm³ and CF RHS 160×80×10 has 191 cm³, a difference of only 1.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 160×80×8.8 at 30.1 kg/m, against 31.8 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.3%. 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 160×80×10 gives 191 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,150 cm⁴ of inertia against 189 cm³ and 1,170 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 160×80×8.8, with a second moment of area of 1,170 cm⁴ against 1,150 cm⁴ (1.7% 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 160×80×8.8 vs RHS 150×100×9.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…