CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 300×200×6.3 vs CF RHS 300×100×10

RHS 300×200×6.3 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 300×100×10 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 624 cm³ against 631 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.1%. RHS 300×200×6.3 is the lighter of the two at 47.9 kg/m against 57 kg/m, a saving of 16.0% 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 300×200×6.3
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 300×100×10
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass47.9 kg/m57 kg/m-16.0%
Depth300 mm300 mmsame
Width200 mm100 mm+100.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area61 cm²72.6 cm²-16.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)7,830 cm⁴7,110 cm⁴+10.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)624 cm³631 cm³-1.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)522 cm³474 cm³+10.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)4,190 cm⁴1,220 cm⁴+243.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)472 cm³285 cm³+65.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)8.29 cm4.11 cm+101.7%
Torsion constant (It)8,480 cm⁴3,680 cm⁴+130.4%

RHS 300×200×6.3 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 300×100×10 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 300×100×10.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 300×200×6.3 has the larger second moment of area: 7,830 cm⁴ against 7,110 cm⁴, a difference of 10.1%. 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 300×200×6.3 is the more efficient section: 13.0 against 11.1 cm³ per kg/m, 17.7% 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 300×200×6.3 has 472 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 285 cm³, 65.6% 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 300×100×10 is the stronger section and RHS 300×200×6.3 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

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 300×200×6.3 has a plastic modulus of 624 cm³ and CF RHS 300×100×10 has 631 cm³, a difference of only 1.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 300×200×6.3 at 47.9 kg/m, against 57 kg/m for the other - a saving of 16.0%. 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 300×100×10 gives 631 cm³ of plastic modulus and 7,110 cm⁴ of inertia against 624 cm³ and 7,830 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 300×200×6.3, with a second moment of area of 7,830 cm⁴ against 7,110 cm⁴ (10.1% 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 300×100×10 vs CF RHS 300×100×10RHS 300×150×8 vs CF RHS 300×100×10RHS 300×200×6.3 vs RHS 300×100×10
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…