CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 180×100×7.1 vs RHS 175×125×6.4

RHS 180×100×7.1 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 175×125×6.4 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 180×100×7.1 carries more bending: 215 cm³ of plastic modulus against 207 cm³, 3.9% more. RHS 175×125×6.4 is the lighter of the two at 28.3 kg/m against 29.2 kg/m, a saving of 3.2% on steel weight. RHS 180×100×7.1 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 180×100×7.1
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 175×125×6.4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass29.2 kg/m28.3 kg/m+3.2%
Depth180 mm175 mm+2.9%
Width100 mm125 mm-20.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area37.2 cm²35.4 cm²+5.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,560 cm⁴1,487 cm⁴+4.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)215 cm³207 cm³+3.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)173 cm³170 cm³+1.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)613 cm⁴886 cm⁴-30.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)142 cm³164 cm³-13.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.06 cm5.01 cm-19.0%
Torsion constant (It)1,410 cm⁴1,832 cm⁴-23.0%

RHS 180×100×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 175×125×6.4 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 175×125×6.4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 180×100×7.1 has the larger second moment of area: 1,560 cm⁴ against 1,487 cm⁴, a difference of 4.9%. 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, the two are equally efficient (7.4 against 7.3 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 175×125×6.4 has 164 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 142 cm³, 13.4% 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 3.2% weight.

In short, RHS 180×100×7.1 is the stronger section and RHS 175×125×6.4 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 180×100×7.1 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 215 cm³ against 207 cm³ - 3.9% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 175×125×6.4 at 28.3 kg/m, against 29.2 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.2%. 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 175×125×6.4 gives 207 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,487 cm⁴ of inertia against 215 cm³ and 1,560 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 180×100×7.1, with a second moment of area of 1,560 cm⁴ against 1,487 cm⁴ (4.9% 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 180×60×8.8 vs RHS 175×125×6.4RHS 180×100×7.1 vs CF RHS 180×100×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…