CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 260×140×8 vs RHS 250×150×8

RHS 260×140×8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 250×150×8 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 511 cm³ against 501 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 2.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 47.7 kg/m and 48 kg/m. RHS 260×140×8 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 260×140×8
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 250×150×8
RHS
Difference
Mass47.7 kg/m48 kg/m-0.6%
Depth260 mm250 mm+4.0%
Width140 mm150 mm-6.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area60.8 cm²60.8 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)5,370 cm⁴5,111 cm⁴+5.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)511 cm³501 cm³+2.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)413 cm³409 cm³+1.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,030 cm⁴2,298 cm⁴-11.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)331 cm³350 cm³-5.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.78 cm6.15 cm-6.0%
Torsion constant (It)4,700 cm⁴5,021 cm⁴-6.4%

RHS 260×140×8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 250×150×8 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 250×150×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 260×140×8 has the larger second moment of area: 5,370 cm⁴ against 5,111 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 260×140×8 is the more efficient section: 10.7 against 10.4 cm³ per kg/m, 2.6% 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, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 260×140×8 has a plastic modulus of 511 cm³ and RHS 250×150×8 has 501 cm³, a difference of only 2.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 260×140×8 is 47.7 kg/m and RHS 250×150×8 is 48 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 250×150×8 gives 501 cm³ of plastic modulus and 5,111 cm⁴ of inertia against 511 cm³ and 5,370 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 260×140×8, with a second moment of area of 5,370 cm⁴ against 5,111 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 250×100×10 vs RHS 250×150×8RHS 250×100×10 vs RHS 250×150×8RHS 250×150×8 vs CF RHS 250×150×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…