CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 300×200×10 vs CF RHS 300×200×10

RHS 300×200×10 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 300×200×10 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). RHS 300×200×10 carries more bending: 956 cm³ of plastic modulus against 921 cm³, 3.8% more. CF RHS 300×200×10 is the lighter of the two at 72.7 kg/m against 74.5 kg/m, a saving of 2.5% on steel weight. 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 300×200×10
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 300×200×10
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass74.5 kg/m72.7 kg/m+2.5%
Depth300 mm300 mmsame
Width200 mm200 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area94.9 cm²92.6 cm²+2.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)11,800 cm⁴11,300 cm⁴+4.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)956 cm³921 cm³+3.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)788 cm³754 cm³+4.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)6,280 cm⁴6,060 cm⁴+3.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)721 cm³698 cm³+3.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)8.13 cm8.09 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)12,900 cm⁴13,000 cm⁴-0.8%

RHS 300×200×10 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 300×200×10 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 300×200×10.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 300×200×10 has the larger second moment of area: 11,800 cm⁴ against 11,300 cm⁴, a difference of 4.4%. 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, the two are equally efficient (12.8 against 12.7 cm³ per kg/m), so on a pure steel-tonnage basis there is nothing to choose between them. The decision comes down to availability, connection detailing and what the rest of the frame uses.

In short, RHS 300×200×10 is the stronger section and CF RHS 300×200×10 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 300×200×10 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 956 cm³ against 921 cm³ - 3.8% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

CF RHS 300×200×10 at 72.7 kg/m, against 74.5 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.5%. 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: CF RHS 300×200×10 gives 921 cm³ of plastic modulus and 11,300 cm⁴ of inertia against 956 cm³ and 11,800 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 300×200×10, with a second moment of area of 11,800 cm⁴ against 11,300 cm⁴ (4.4% 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 300×100×14.2 vs CF RHS 300×200×10RHS 300×100×14.2 vs RHS 300×200×10RHS 300×100×16 vs RHS 300×200×10RHS 300×150×12.5 vs RHS 300×200×10RHS 300×250×8 vs CF RHS 300×200×10RHS 300×250×8 vs RHS 300×200×10RHS 300×250×8.8 vs RHS 300×200×10
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…