CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 180×100×5 vs RHS 175×125×4.8

RHS 180×100×5 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 175×125×4.8 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 175×125×4.8 carries more bending: 163 cm³ of plastic modulus against 157 cm³, 3.7% more. RHS 180×100×5 is the lighter of the two at 21 kg/m against 21.6 kg/m, a saving of 2.8% on steel weight. RHS 180×100×5 is deeper, 180 mm against 175 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 180×100×5
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 175×125×4.8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass21 kg/m21.6 kg/m-2.8%
Depth180 mm175 mm+2.9%
Width100 mm125 mm-20.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area26.7 cm²27.3 cm²-2.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,150 cm⁴1,187 cm⁴-3.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)157 cm³163 cm³-3.7%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)128 cm³136 cm³-5.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)460 cm⁴708 cm⁴-35.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)104 cm³129 cm³-19.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.15 cm5.09 cm-18.5%
Torsion constant (It)1,040 cm⁴1,410 cm⁴-26.2%

RHS 180×100×5 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 175×125×4.8 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 175×125×4.8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 175×125×4.8 has the larger second moment of area: 1,187 cm⁴ against 1,150 cm⁴, a difference of 3.1%. 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 (7.5 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: RHS 175×125×4.8 has 129 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 104 cm³, 19.4% 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 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 2.8% weight.

In short, RHS 175×125×4.8 is the stronger section and RHS 180×100×5 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

RHS 175×125×4.8 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 163 cm³ against 157 cm³ - 3.7% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 180×100×5 at 21 kg/m, against 21.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.8%. 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 175×125×4.8 gives 163 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,187 cm⁴ of inertia against 157 cm³ and 1,150 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 175×125×4.8, with a second moment of area of 1,187 cm⁴ against 1,150 cm⁴ (3.1% 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 180×60×7.1 vs RHS 175×125×4.8RHS 180×100×5 vs CF RHS 180×80×6
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…