CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 350×250×8.8 vs RHS 350×150×12.5

RHS 350×250×8.8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 350×150×12.5 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 350×150×12.5 carries more bending: 1263 cm³ of plastic modulus against 1220 cm³, 3.4% more. RHS 350×250×8.8 is the lighter of the two at 79.8 kg/m against 92.6 kg/m, a saving of 13.8% on steel weight. Both are about 350 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 350×250×8.8
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 350×150×12.5
RHS
Difference
Mass79.8 kg/m92.6 kg/m-13.8%
Depth350 mm350 mmsame
Width250 mm150 mm+66.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area102 cm²117 cm²-12.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)17,900 cm⁴17,300 cm⁴+3.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)1,220 cm³1,263 cm³-3.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)1,030 cm³988 cm³+4.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)10,700 cm⁴4,450 cm⁴+140.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)970 cm³686 cm³+41.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)10.2 cm6.17 cm+65.3%
Torsion constant (It)20,800 cm⁴11,620 cm⁴+79.0%

RHS 350×250×8.8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 350×150×12.5 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 350×150×12.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 350×250×8.8 has the larger second moment of area: 17,900 cm⁴ against 17,300 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 of steel, RHS 350×250×8.8 is the more efficient section: 15.3 against 13.6 cm³ per kg/m, 12.1% 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 350×250×8.8 has 970 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 686 cm³, 41.4% 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 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 13.8% weight.

In short, RHS 350×150×12.5 is the stronger section and RHS 350×250×8.8 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 350×150×12.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 1263 cm³ against 1220 cm³ - 3.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 350×250×8.8 at 79.8 kg/m, against 92.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 13.8%. 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: RHS 350×150×12.5 gives 1263 cm³ of plastic modulus and 17,300 cm⁴ of inertia against 1220 cm³ and 17,900 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 350×250×8.8, with a second moment of area of 17,900 cm⁴ against 17,300 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…