CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 200×100×12.5 vs RHS 200×150×9.5

RHS 200×100×12.5 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 200×150×9.5 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 200×100×12.5 carries more bending: 408 cm³ of plastic modulus against 396 cm³, 3.0% more. RHS 200×150×9.5 is the lighter of the two at 48.4 kg/m against 52.7 kg/m, a saving of 8.9% on steel weight. Both are about 200 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 200×100×12.5
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 200×150×9.5
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass52.7 kg/m48.4 kg/m+8.9%
Depth200 mm200 mmsame
Width100 mm150 mm-33.3%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area67.1 cm²59.8 cm²+12.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,140 cm⁴3,225 cm⁴-2.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)408 cm³396 cm³+3.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)314 cm³322 cm³-2.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,000 cm⁴2,066 cm⁴-51.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)245 cm³326 cm³-24.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.87 cm5.88 cm-34.2%
Torsion constant (It)2,540 cm⁴4,244 cm⁴-40.2%

RHS 200×100×12.5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 200×150×9.5 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 200×150×9.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 200×150×9.5 has the larger second moment of area: 3,225 cm⁴ against 3,140 cm⁴, a difference of 2.6%. 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 200×150×9.5 is the more efficient section: 8.2 against 7.7 cm³ per kg/m, 5.4% 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: RHS 200×150×9.5 has 326 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 245 cm³, 24.8% 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 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 8.9% weight.

In short, RHS 200×100×12.5 is the stronger section and RHS 200×150×9.5 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 200×100×12.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 408 cm³ against 396 cm³ - 3.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 200×150×9.5 at 48.4 kg/m, against 52.7 kg/m for the other - a saving of 8.9%. 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 200×150×9.5 gives 396 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,225 cm⁴ of inertia against 408 cm³ and 3,140 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 200×150×9.5, with a second moment of area of 3,225 cm⁴ against 3,140 cm⁴ (2.6% 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 200×100×12.5 vs CF RHS 200×150×10RHS 200×150×8.8 vs RHS 200×150×9.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…