CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 160×80×12.5 vs RHS 175×100×9.5

RHS 160×80×12.5 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 175×100×9.5 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 247 cm³ against 246 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. RHS 175×100×9.5 is the lighter of the two at 37.1 kg/m against 40.9 kg/m, a saving of 10.2% on steel weight. RHS 175×100×9.5 is deeper, 175 mm against 160 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 160×80×12.5
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 175×100×9.5
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass40.9 kg/m37.1 kg/m+10.2%
Depth160 mm175 mm-8.6%
Width80 mm100 mm-20.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area52.1 cm²45.5 cm²+14.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,490 cm⁴1,673 cm⁴-10.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)247 cm³246 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)186 cm³191 cm³-2.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)465 cm⁴694 cm⁴-33.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)146 cm³166 cm³-12.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.99 cm3.9 cm-23.3%
Torsion constant (It)1,200 cm⁴1,719 cm⁴-30.2%

RHS 160×80×12.5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 175×100×9.5 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 175×100×9.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 175×100×9.5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,673 cm⁴ against 1,490 cm⁴, a difference of 10.9%. 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 175×100×9.5 is the more efficient section: 6.6 against 6.0 cm³ per kg/m, 8.9% 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 175×100×9.5 has 166 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 146 cm³, 12.0% 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 Cold-formed 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 10.2% weight.

In short, RHS 160×80×12.5 is the stronger section and RHS 175×100×9.5 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 160×80×12.5 has a plastic modulus of 247 cm³ and RHS 175×100×9.5 has 246 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 175×100×9.5 at 37.1 kg/m, against 40.9 kg/m for the other - a saving of 10.2%. 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 175×100×9.5 gives 246 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,673 cm⁴ of inertia against 247 cm³ and 1,490 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 175×100×9.5, with a second moment of area of 1,673 cm⁴ against 1,490 cm⁴ (10.9% 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 180×100×8 vs RHS 175×100×9.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…