CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 300×150×10 vs RHS 300×200×9

RHS 300×150×10 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 300×200×9 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 300×200×9 carries more bending: 840 cm³ of plastic modulus against 811 cm³, 3.5% more. They weigh essentially the same, 66.7 kg/m and 66.5 kg/m. Both are about 300 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 300×150×10
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 300×200×9
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass66.7 kg/m66.5 kg/m+0.3%
Depth300 mm300 mmsame
Width150 mm200 mm-25.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area84.9 cm²84 cm²+1.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)9,720 cm⁴10,370 cm⁴-6.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)811 cm³840 cm³-3.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)648 cm³691 cm³-6.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)3,250 cm⁴5,561 cm⁴-41.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)496 cm³637 cm³-22.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.18 cm8.14 cm-24.1%
Torsion constant (It)7,840 cm⁴11,820 cm⁴-33.7%

RHS 300×150×10 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 300×200×9 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 300×200×9.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 300×200×9 has the larger second moment of area: 10,370 cm⁴ against 9,720 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 300×200×9 is the more efficient section: 12.6 against 12.2 cm³ per kg/m, 3.7% 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 300×200×9 has 637 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 496 cm³, 22.1% 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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, RHS 300×200×9 is the stronger section and RHS 300×200×9 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 300×200×9 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 840 cm³ against 811 cm³ - 3.5% 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 300×150×10 is 66.7 kg/m and RHS 300×200×9 is 66.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 300×200×9 gives 840 cm³ of plastic modulus and 10,370 cm⁴ of inertia against 811 cm³ and 9,720 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 300×200×9, with a second moment of area of 10,370 cm⁴ against 9,720 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 300×100×12.5 vs RHS 300×200×9RHS 300×150×10 vs RHS 300×100×12RHS 300×200×8.8 vs RHS 300×200×9RHS 300×250×7.1 vs RHS 300×200×9
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…