CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 200×150×10 vs CF RHS 200×150×10

RHS 200×150×10 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 200×150×10 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). RHS 200×150×10 carries more bending: 436 cm³ of plastic modulus against 413 cm³, 5.6% more. CF RHS 200×150×10 is the lighter of the two at 49.1 kg/m against 51 kg/m, a saving of 3.9% 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 200×150×10
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 200×150×10
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass51 kg/m49.1 kg/m+3.9%
Depth200 mm200 mmsame
Width150 mm150 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area64.9 cm²62.6 cm²+3.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,570 cm⁴3,350 cm⁴+6.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)436 cm³413 cm³+5.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)357 cm³335 cm³+6.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,260 cm⁴2,140 cm⁴+5.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)356 cm³339 cm³+5.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.91 cm5.85 cm+1.0%
Torsion constant (It)4,410 cm⁴4,430 cm⁴-0.5%

RHS 200×150×10 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 200×150×10 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 200×150×10.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 200×150×10 has the larger second moment of area: 3,570 cm⁴ against 3,350 cm⁴, a difference of 6.6%. 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, the two are equally efficient (8.5 against 8.4 cm³ per kg/m), so on a pure steel-tonnage basis there is nothing to choose between them. The decision comes down to availability, connection detailing and what the rest of the frame uses.

In short, RHS 200×150×10 is the stronger section and CF RHS 200×150×10 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 200×150×10 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 436 cm³ against 413 cm³ - 5.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CF RHS 200×150×10 at 49.1 kg/m, against 51 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.9%. 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: CF RHS 200×150×10 gives 413 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,350 cm⁴ of inertia against 436 cm³ and 3,570 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 200×150×10, with a second moment of area of 3,570 cm⁴ against 3,350 cm⁴ (6.6% 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 200×100×14.2 vs RHS 200×150×10RHS 200×120×12.5 vs RHS 200×150×10RHS 200×150×8.8 vs CF RHS 200×150×10
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…