CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 180×100×4 vs CF RHS 180×100×4

RHS 180×100×4 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 180×100×4 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 128 cm³ against 126 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.6%. They weigh essentially the same, 16.9 kg/m and 16.8 kg/m. Both are about 180 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 180×100×4
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 180×100×4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass16.9 kg/m16.8 kg/m+0.6%
Depth180 mm180 mmsame
Width100 mm100 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area21.6 cm²21.3 cm²+1.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)945 cm⁴926 cm⁴+2.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)128 cm³126 cm³+1.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)105 cm³103 cm³+1.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)379 cm⁴374 cm⁴+1.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)85.2 cm³84 cm³+1.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.19 cm4.18 cm+0.2%
Torsion constant (It)852 cm⁴854 cm⁴-0.2%

RHS 180×100×4 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 180×100×4 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 180×100×4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 180×100×4 has the larger second moment of area: 945 cm⁴ against 926 cm⁴, a difference of 2.1%. 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 (7.6 against 7.5 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 180×100×4 has a plastic modulus of 128 cm³ and CF RHS 180×100×4 has 126 cm³, a difference of only 1.6% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: RHS 180×100×4 is 16.9 kg/m and CF RHS 180×100×4 is 16.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF RHS 180×100×4 gives 126 cm³ of plastic modulus and 926 cm⁴ of inertia against 128 cm³ and 945 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

RHS 180×100×4, with a second moment of area of 945 cm⁴ against 926 cm⁴ (2.1% 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 180×60×5 vs CF RHS 180×100×4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…