CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 260×140×10 vs RHS 250×150×10

RHS 260×140×10 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 250×150×10 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 260×140×10 carries more bending: 624 cm³ of plastic modulus against 611 cm³, 2.1% more. They weigh essentially the same, 58.8 kg/m and 59.3 kg/m. RHS 260×140×10 is deeper, 260 mm against 250 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 260×140×10
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 250×150×10
RHS
Difference
Mass58.8 kg/m59.3 kg/m-0.8%
Depth260 mm250 mm+4.0%
Width140 mm150 mm-6.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area74.9 cm²74.9 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)6,490 cm⁴6,174 cm⁴+5.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)624 cm³611 cm³+2.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)499 cm³494 cm³+1.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,430 cm⁴2,755 cm⁴-11.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)402 cm³426 cm³-5.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.7 cm6.06 cm-5.9%
Torsion constant (It)5,700 cm⁴6,090 cm⁴-6.4%

RHS 260×140×10 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 250×150×10 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 250×150×10.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 260×140×10 has the larger second moment of area: 6,490 cm⁴ against 6,174 cm⁴, a difference of 5.1%. 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 260×140×10 is the more efficient section: 10.6 against 10.3 cm³ per kg/m, 3.0% 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.

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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, RHS 260×140×10 is the stronger section and RHS 260×140×10 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 260×140×10 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 624 cm³ against 611 cm³ - 2.1% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 260×140×10 is 58.8 kg/m and RHS 250×150×10 is 59.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 250×150×10 gives 611 cm³ of plastic modulus and 6,174 cm⁴ of inertia against 624 cm³ and 6,490 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 260×140×10, with a second moment of area of 6,490 cm⁴ against 6,174 cm⁴ (5.1% 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 250×100×12.5 vs RHS 250×150×10RHS 250×100×12.5 vs RHS 250×150×10RHS 250×150×10 vs CF RHS 250×150×10
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…