CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 300×200×8 vs CF RHS 300×200×8

RHS 300×200×8 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). RHS 300×200×8 carries more bending: 779 cm³ of plastic modulus against 757 cm³, 2.9% more. CF RHS 300×200×8 is the lighter of the two at 59.1 kg/m against 60.3 kg/m, a saving of 2.0% 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 300×200×8
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 300×200×8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass60.3 kg/m59.1 kg/m+2.0%
Depth300 mm300 mmsame
Width200 mm200 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area76.8 cm²75.2 cm²+2.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)9,720 cm⁴9,390 cm⁴+3.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)779 cm³757 cm³+2.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)648 cm³626 cm³+3.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)5,180 cm⁴5,040 cm⁴+2.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)589 cm³574 cm³+2.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)8.22 cm8.19 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)10,600 cm⁴10,600 cm⁴same

RHS 300×200×8 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, RHS 300×200×8 has the larger second moment of area: 9,720 cm⁴ against 9,390 cm⁴, a difference of 3.5%. 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 (12.9 against 12.8 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 300×200×8 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

RHS 300×200×8 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 779 cm³ against 757 cm³ - 2.9% 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 300×200×8 at 59.1 kg/m, against 60.3 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.0%. 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 300×200×8 gives 757 cm³ of plastic modulus and 9,390 cm⁴ of inertia against 779 cm³ and 9,720 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 300×200×8, with a second moment of area of 9,720 cm⁴ against 9,390 cm⁴ (3.5% 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 CF RHS 300×200×8RHS 300×150×8.8 vs RHS 300×200×8RHS 300×200×8 vs RHS 300×100×12RHS 300×250×6.3 vs CF RHS 300×200×8RHS 300×250×6.3 vs 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…