CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 200×150×8.8 vs RHS 200×100×12

RHS 200×150×8.8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 200×100×12 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 390 cm³ against 395 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.3%. RHS 200×150×8.8 is the lighter of the two at 45.3 kg/m against 50.8 kg/m, a saving of 10.8% 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 200×150×8.8
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 200×100×12
RHS
Difference
Mass45.3 kg/m50.8 kg/m-10.8%
Depth200 mm200 mmsame
Width150 mm100 mm+50.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area57.7 cm²64.7 cm²-10.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,220 cm⁴3,047 cm⁴+5.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)390 cm³395 cm³-1.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)322 cm³305 cm³+5.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,050 cm⁴979 cm⁴+109.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)319 cm³237 cm³+34.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.96 cm3.89 cm+53.2%
Torsion constant (It)3,960 cm⁴2,469 cm⁴+60.4%

RHS 200×150×8.8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 200×100×12 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 200×100×12.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 200×150×8.8 has the larger second moment of area: 3,220 cm⁴ against 3,047 cm⁴, a difference of 5.7%. 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 200×150×8.8 is the more efficient section: 8.6 against 7.8 cm³ per kg/m, 10.7% 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 200×150×8.8 has 319 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 237 cm³, 34.6% 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 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 10.8% weight.

In short, RHS 200×100×12 is the stronger section and RHS 200×150×8.8 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 200×150×8.8 has a plastic modulus of 390 cm³ and RHS 200×100×12 has 395 cm³, a difference of only 1.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 200×150×8.8 at 45.3 kg/m, against 50.8 kg/m for the other - a saving of 10.8%. 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 200×100×12 gives 395 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,047 cm⁴ of inertia against 390 cm³ and 3,220 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 200×150×8.8, with a second moment of area of 3,220 cm⁴ against 3,047 cm⁴ (5.7% 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 200×100×10 vs RHS 200×100×12RHS 200×120×8.8 vs RHS 200×100×12RHS 200×120×10 vs RHS 200×100×12RHS 200×150×8.8 vs CF RHS 200×150×10RHS 200×150×8.8 vs RHS 200×150×9.5RHS 220×120×8.8 vs RHS 200×100×12
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…