CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 200×150×6.3 vs RHS 200×100×9

RHS 200×150×6.3 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 200×100×9 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 289 cm³ against 293 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.4%. RHS 200×150×6.3 is the lighter of the two at 33 kg/m against 40.52 kg/m, a saving of 18.6% 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 200×150×6.3
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 200×100×9
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass33 kg/m40.5 kg/m-18.6%
Depth200 mm200 mmsame
Width150 mm100 mm+50.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area42.1 cm²48 cm²-12.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,420 cm⁴2,276 cm⁴+6.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)289 cm³293 cm³-1.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)242 cm³228 cm³+6.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,550 cm⁴764 cm⁴+102.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)237 cm³180 cm³+31.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.07 cm3.99 cm+52.1%
Torsion constant (It)2,950 cm⁴1,988 cm⁴+48.4%

RHS 200×150×6.3 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 200×100×9 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 200×100×9.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 200×150×6.3 has the larger second moment of area: 2,420 cm⁴ against 2,276 cm⁴, a difference of 6.3%. 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 200×150×6.3 is the more efficient section: 8.8 against 7.2 cm³ per kg/m, 21.1% 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 200×150×6.3 has 237 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 180 cm³, 31.7% 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 18.6% weight.

In short, RHS 200×100×9 is the stronger section and RHS 200×150×6.3 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 200×150×6.3 has a plastic modulus of 289 cm³ and RHS 200×100×9 has 293 cm³, a difference of only 1.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 200×150×6.3 at 33 kg/m, against 40.52 kg/m for the other - a saving of 18.6%. 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: RHS 200×100×9 gives 293 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,276 cm⁴ of inertia against 289 cm³ and 2,420 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 200×150×6.3, with a second moment of area of 2,420 cm⁴ against 2,276 cm⁴ (6.3% 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 200×100×8 vs RHS 200×150×6.3RHS 200×100×8.8 vs RHS 200×150×6.3RHS 200×120×7.1 vs RHS 200×150×6.3RHS 200×150×6.3 vs CF RHS 200×120×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…