CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 160×80×4 vs RHS 150×75×4.8

RHS 160×80×4 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 150×75×4.8 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 94.7 cm³ against 95.2 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.5%. RHS 150×75×4.8 is the lighter of the two at 14 kg/m against 14.4 kg/m, a saving of 2.9% on steel weight. RHS 160×80×4 is deeper, 160 mm against 150 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 160×80×4
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 150×75×4.8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass14.4 kg/m14 kg/m+2.9%
Depth160 mm150 mm+6.7%
Width80 mm75 mm+6.7%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area18.4 cm²20.1 cm²-8.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)612 cm⁴568 cm⁴+7.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)94.7 cm³95.2 cm³-0.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)76.5 cm³75.8 cm³+0.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)207 cm⁴192 cm⁴+7.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)58.3 cm³58.6 cm³-0.5%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.35 cm3.09 cm+8.4%
Torsion constant (It)493 cm⁴474 cm⁴+4.0%

RHS 160×80×4 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 150×75×4.8 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 150×75×4.8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 160×80×4 has the larger second moment of area: 612 cm⁴ against 568 cm⁴, a difference of 7.7%. 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 150×75×4.8 is the more efficient section: 6.8 against 6.6 cm³ per kg/m, 3.3% 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.

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 2.9% weight.

In short, RHS 150×75×4.8 is the stronger section and RHS 150×75×4.8 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

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 160×80×4 has a plastic modulus of 94.7 cm³ and RHS 150×75×4.8 has 95.2 cm³, a difference of only 0.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 150×75×4.8 at 14 kg/m, against 14.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.9%. 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 150×75×4.8 gives 95.2 cm³ of plastic modulus and 568 cm⁴ of inertia against 94.7 cm³ and 612 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 160×80×4, with a second moment of area of 612 cm⁴ against 568 cm⁴ (7.7% 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 160×80×4 vs CF RHS 160×80×4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…