CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 180×100×8.8 vs CF RHS 180×100×10

RHS 180×100×8.8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 180×100×10 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF RHS 180×100×10 carries more bending: 268 cm³ of plastic modulus against 259 cm³, 3.4% more. RHS 180×100×8.8 is the lighter of the two at 35.6 kg/m against 38.1 kg/m, a saving of 6.6% on steel weight. Both are about 180 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 180×100×8.8
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 180×100×10
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass35.6 kg/m38.1 kg/m-6.6%
Depth180 mm180 mmsame
Width100 mm100 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area45.4 cm²48.6 cm²-6.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,850 cm⁴1,860 cm⁴-0.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)259 cm³268 cm³-3.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)205 cm³207 cm³-1.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)720 cm⁴736 cm⁴-2.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)170 cm³177 cm³-4.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.98 cm3.89 cm+2.3%
Torsion constant (It)1,690 cm⁴1,860 cm⁴-9.1%

RHS 180×100×8.8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 180×100×10 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 180×100×10.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF RHS 180×100×10 has the larger second moment of area: 1,860 cm⁴ against 1,850 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 180×100×8.8 is the more efficient section: 7.3 against 7.0 cm³ per kg/m, 3.4% 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.

In short, CF RHS 180×100×10 is the stronger section and RHS 180×100×8.8 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

CF RHS 180×100×10 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 268 cm³ against 259 cm³ - 3.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 180×100×8.8 at 35.6 kg/m, against 38.1 kg/m for the other - a saving of 6.6%. 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 180×100×10 gives 268 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,860 cm⁴ of inertia against 259 cm³ and 1,850 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF RHS 180×100×10, with a second moment of area of 1,860 cm⁴ against 1,850 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 180×60×12.5 vs CF RHS 180×100×10
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…