CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 160×80×4 vs CF RHS 160×80×4

RHS 160×80×4 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 160×80×4 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 94.7 cm³ against 92.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.9%. They weigh essentially the same, 14.4 kg/m and 14.2 kg/m. Both are about 160 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 160×80×4
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 160×80×4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass14.4 kg/m14.2 kg/m+1.4%
Depth160 mm160 mmsame
Width80 mm80 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area18.4 cm²18.1 cm²+1.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)612 cm⁴598 cm⁴+2.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)94.7 cm³92.9 cm³+1.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)76.5 cm³74.7 cm³+2.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)207 cm⁴204 cm⁴+1.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)58.3 cm³57.4 cm³+1.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.35 cm3.35 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)493 cm⁴494 cm⁴-0.2%

RHS 160×80×4 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 160×80×4 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 160×80×4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 160×80×4 has the larger second moment of area: 612 cm⁴ against 598 cm⁴, a difference of 2.3%. 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 (6.6 against 6.5 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, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 160×80×4 has a plastic modulus of 94.7 cm³ and CF RHS 160×80×4 has 92.9 cm³, a difference of only 1.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 160×80×4 is 14.4 kg/m and CF RHS 160×80×4 is 14.2 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF RHS 160×80×4 gives 92.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 598 cm⁴ of inertia against 94.7 cm³ and 612 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 160×80×4, with a second moment of area of 612 cm⁴ against 598 cm⁴ (2.3% 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 RHS 150×75×4.8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…