CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 300×150×8.8 vs CF RHS 300×200×8

RHS 300×150×8.8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 300×200×8 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF RHS 300×200×8 carries more bending: 757 cm³ of plastic modulus against 723 cm³, 4.5% more. They weigh essentially the same, 59.1 kg/m and 59.1 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 300×150×8.8
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 300×200×8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass59.1 kg/m59.1 kg/msame
Depth300 mm300 mmsame
Width150 mm200 mm-25.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area75.3 cm²75.2 cm²+0.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)8,710 cm⁴9,390 cm⁴-7.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)723 cm³757 cm³-4.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)580 cm³626 cm³-7.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,930 cm⁴5,040 cm⁴-41.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)443 cm³574 cm³-22.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.23 cm8.19 cm-23.9%
Torsion constant (It)7,020 cm⁴10,600 cm⁴-33.8%

RHS 300×150×8.8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 300×200×8 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 300×200×8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF RHS 300×200×8 has the larger second moment of area: 9,390 cm⁴ against 8,710 cm⁴, a difference of 7.2%. 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, CF RHS 300×200×8 is the more efficient section: 12.8 against 12.2 cm³ per kg/m, 4.5% 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: CF RHS 300×200×8 has 574 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 443 cm³, 22.8% 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.

In short, CF RHS 300×200×8 is the stronger section and CF RHS 300×200×8 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

CF RHS 300×200×8 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 757 cm³ against 723 cm³ - 4.5% 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 300×150×8.8 is 59.1 kg/m and CF RHS 300×200×8 is 59.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF RHS 300×200×8 gives 757 cm³ of plastic modulus and 9,390 cm⁴ of inertia against 723 cm³ and 8,710 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF RHS 300×200×8, with a second moment of area of 9,390 cm⁴ against 8,710 cm⁴ (7.2% 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 300×150×8.8 vs RHS 300×200×8RHS 300×200×8 vs CF RHS 300×200×8RHS 300×250×6.3 vs CF RHS 300×200×8RHS 300×250×7.1 vs CF RHS 300×200×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…