CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 180×100×8 vs RHS 175×100×9.5

RHS 180×100×8 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 175×100×9.5 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. RHS 175×100×9.5 carries more bending: 246 cm³ of plastic modulus against 239 cm³, 2.8% more. RHS 180×100×8 is the lighter of the two at 32.6 kg/m against 37.1 kg/m, a saving of 12.1% on steel weight. RHS 180×100×8 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 180×100×8
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 175×100×9.5
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass32.6 kg/m37.1 kg/m-12.1%
Depth180 mm175 mm+2.9%
Width100 mm100 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area41.6 cm²45.5 cm²-8.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,710 cm⁴1,673 cm⁴+2.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)239 cm³246 cm³-2.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)190 cm³191 cm³-0.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)671 cm⁴694 cm⁴-3.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)157 cm³166 cm³-5.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.02 cm3.9 cm+3.1%
Torsion constant (It)1,560 cm⁴1,719 cm⁴-9.2%

RHS 180×100×8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 175×100×9.5 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 175×100×9.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 180×100×8 has the larger second moment of area: 1,710 cm⁴ against 1,673 cm⁴, a difference of 2.2%. 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 180×100×8 is the more efficient section: 7.3 against 6.6 cm³ per kg/m, 10.6% 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 12.1% weight.

In short, RHS 175×100×9.5 is the stronger section and RHS 180×100×8 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

RHS 175×100×9.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 246 cm³ against 239 cm³ - 2.8% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 180×100×8 at 32.6 kg/m, against 37.1 kg/m for the other - a saving of 12.1%. 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 175×100×9.5 gives 246 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,673 cm⁴ of inertia against 239 cm³ and 1,710 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 180×100×8, with a second moment of area of 1,710 cm⁴ against 1,673 cm⁴ (2.2% 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 160×80×12.5 vs RHS 175×100×9.5RHS 180×100×8 vs CF RHS 180×80×10
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…